


















J 



.0- 



o c 






^- 



Si 



I : "^ .^ 






^/ 






.<*^^., 






,$ << 



^-^ ,-r 






A^' ^ 



'J^, 



*;^' o N' 



5- ^ -^-^ \ 









^\d^ 



o 



,r^--^^' V^ 



,0o 






1%^ 















V <- ^ ' « 



-,. ' " . - .0^ 



,o>.,c°;;«;--<.^ 






^f, A^ 






5 -7-^ 



k^' <.\^{:%^^r '-e. 



^#' ^i^ 



. "^. 



.V 










:^' .^^#^^:'^ "^ ^ 



,^^' % 






•S r, N 



<^0 






^^^^ V 






o.x-^ ^G^ 



,^v o " >^ ^ ^j 



OO 



\ o 



,v- 



x^^^ 



- .-i -r^^ 












V ^^ * 0^ <> 






i."^ 



cT'^ V 



r^' 



r .-AH/A= >^^ 



^■.\^ » ^' 






A n V I « . -/' 






C^^ A"^^'-.% 



.^ <0 






'^^ V^ 






.•h> 



o 0^ 



v^ ^y .0e^^< -e 



^^ J^^' 






" A.'^ 



,s^^^. 



,^^■ -/> 



%,^x^' 



cP\^!i:c"^'^^\:^ .^ 



'^/. 'o. .-*. ^X^' 



.^ 









<^' ...■^>"--^.-.,s ~A-y^^^^''<^ 



,A^' ^ 



•\' 






"^^ .<^ 



-<0 -^' 






A^^^ 






THE HAZEN COUET-MAPJIAL : 



THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DISASTER TO THE 

LADY FRANKLIN BAY POLAR EXPEDITION 

DEFINITELY ESTABLISHED, 



WITH 

PROPOSED REFORMS IN THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF 
COURTS-MARTIAL. 



^j' 



rf MAOKEY, 



Counsel for Brigadie?'- General W. B. Eazen, Chief Signal Officer, XT. S. A, 



" Here we are, dying like men ! Only seven left. 
We came to beat the Dest record, and we've done 
it."— The words of Lieutenant A. W. Greely when 
rescued at Cape Sabine, June 22, 1884. 



NEW YORK: 
VAN NOSTRAND, PUBLISHER, 

83 MuKEAT AKD 87 Wabren Street. 

1885. 



n 



% 



Copyright, 1885, 

by 
T. J. MACKEY. 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

Introduction, ... - 5 

Letter of General W. B. Hazen to the Secretary of War which 

led to this Trial, 68 

Letter from General Hazen to the Secretary of War, requesting 

that his (Hazen's) Trial should proceed as ordered, . • . 74 
Proceedings of a General Court-Martial convened at the Ebbitt 
House, in the City of Washington, D. C, on the eleventh day 

op March, eighteen hundred and eighty-five, .... 75 

First Day, 76 

Second Day, 86 

Third Day 100 

Fourth Day, 126 

Fifth Day, . . . . .139 

Sixth Day, 177 

Seventh Day, 208 

Eighth Day, . . 227 

Ninth Day, 251 

Tenth Day, 279 

Appendix, 283 

Letter of Chief-Engineer George W. Melville, U. S. N., . . 285 

Letter of Lieutenant A. W. Greely, U. S. A., . . . . 290 

Letter of Sergeant D. L. Brainard, 291 

Letter of Consul Molloy, 298 

Letter of Hon. J. Syme, 294 

Certificate of Hon. J. Syme as to the Characters of the Ice- 
Navigators whose Statements are appended, . . . 295 

Statement of Captain Pike, 296 

Statement of Ice-Pilot White, 297 

Statement of Ice-Pilot Walsh, 299 

Statement of William Carlson, 300 

Statement of Engineer McPherson, 301 

Temperature (Fahrenheit) at Upernavik, Latitude N. 72^ 47', 
Longitude W. 56°, Winter 1883-4. Furnished by the 

Meteorological Bureau of Denmark, . . . . . 303 



CONTENTS. 



Appendix continued — 

Temperature of the Air, as recorded on board the steam-launch 
carrying Lieutenant Greely's Party from Cape Conger to 
near Cape Sabine, September 10, and on the Ice Floe until 

after landing at Eskimo Point, 303 

Temperatures observed near Cape Sabine, October, 1883, . . 304 
Temperature of the Air at St. John's, N. F., during the months 

of September and October, 1883, 305 

From General Hazen, protesting against Secretary Lincoln's 

Kefusal to forward his Letters to Congress, . . . 306 

Lieutenant Greely on Garlington's Disobedience of Orders, . 308 
Letter of General Hazen urging that Lieutenant Garlington 

be brought to Trial, . . . . . . . .311 

Statement of W. H. Lamar, Jr., Sergeant Signal Corps, . . 314 
Statement of Frank W. Ellis, Sergeant Signal Corps, . . 336 

Lieutenant Greely's Instructions, 336 

Lieutenant Greely's Plan of Relief Expedition adopted by 
General Hazen, and furnished Lieutenant Garlington for 

his Guidance, . , . 339 

From General Hazen in answer to Commander Wildes, , . 342 
From General Hazen, again urging the Trial of Garlington, . 348 
Letter of the Hon. Robert T. Lincoln, Secretary of War, pre- 
senting his Views of the Action of General Hazen in rela- 
tion to the Garlington Relief Expedition, to which Views the 
Proteus Court of Inquiry conformed its Conclusions, . . 350 

General Hazen's Military Record, 357 

Letter from J. W. Randolph in answer to the Aspersions cast 

upon Sergeant Brainard by Colonel Chauncey McKeever, . 360 
The Delinquency of Commander Frank Wildes proved by the 

Log-Book of the Yantic, ....... .362 



INTRODUCTION. 



•'These Lincoln washes have devoured them." 

— Shakspearb. 

THE recent trial of Brigadier- General William B. Hazen, 
Chief Signal Officer, United States Army, has attracted 
very general attention, due not only to the high rank of 
the officers composing the Conrt-Martial, but to the official 
station of the accuser and the distinguished character of the 
accused. 

The popular interest in the trial was deepened by the well- 
known fact that it grew out of a controversy as to who was 
really responsible for the final disaster to the Lady Franklin 
Bay Expedition commanded by Lieutenant A. W. Greely, 
U. S. A. 

The magnitude of that disaster had not only challenged the 
attention of many foreign nations, as well as that of the 
jAmerican public, but it had awakened everywhere, among 
(thoughtful men who knew of its achievements, a profound 
desire to have the responsibility for the appalling tragedy in 
which it terminated authoritatively traced. 

Those achievements not only included the collection of facts 
of great scientific value and of practical utility as bearing upon 
the interests of commerce, by adding to our knowledge of winds, 
and of ocean currents and terrestrial magnetism, but they were 
crowned by an act that reflected renewed lustre upon the annals 
of our country. 

The expedition achieved a nearer approach to the North 



6 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

Pole — the crown jewel of the Arctic dome — than had eyer heen 
attained by man. 

On the 15th day of May, 1882, it planted the standard of 
the republic in latitude 83° 24' 5" K and longitude 40° 46' W.— 
a point farther to the north than the ensign of any nation had 
ever been unfurled. It thus, by the hands of Lieutenant James 
B. Lockwood, U. S. A., wrested from England the honor of 
achieying the farthest northing, which she had deservedly worn 
for nearly three hundred years. 

When disaster came to the expedition it had already done its 
appointed work. The twenty-five officers and men who com- 
posed it had resided for two years at the permanent station 
(Camp Conger) in latitude 81° 45' N., and, under the excellent 
sanitary administration of their commander, had prosecuted 
their work in perfect health, in a region where the forces of 
nature have so often proved themselves superior to the re- 
sources of man. 

Their station was literally ** in thrilling regions of thick- 
ribbed ice," two hundred miles north of the most northerly ig- 
loo, or snow-hut, of the far- wandering Eskimo. 

They arrived there August 11, 1881, and Lieutenant Greely, 
in obedience to his instructions, departed from it August 9, 1883, 
sailing southward with his command in a small steam-launch 
and three whale-boats, carrying supplies for about sixty days. 

After threading his way through the grinding ice of Eobe- 
son and Kennedy Channels for two hundred and fifty miles 
with unexampled toil, the launch was crushed by the ice in 
Smith Sound a few miles north of Cape Sabine. He arrived 
in that vicinity with his party September 29, within the very 
time indicated by his instructions. 

Cape Sabine was the most southerly depot of supplies on the 
east side of Grinnell Land, Lieutenant Greely 's designated line 
of retreat. He brought his command there intact, although 
travel-worn and exhausted, without the loss of a single life or 
limb, and with its organization and discipline unimpaired. 



THE HAZEN COURT- MAETIAL. 7 

And there it lay until famine had eaten it up. Out of a 
total of twenty-five a broken and shattered remnant of only 
seven survived (and one of these limbless and beyond recovery) 
when rescued by the relief expedition of 1884 under Comman- 
der W. S. Schley, U. S. N., who for more than two thousand 
miles ran a race with death, and, braving every peril, reached 
Cape Sabine on June 22, and there beheld a ghastly spectacle of 
dead and dying which plainly told, that had this splendidly-led 
forlorn hope of rescue arrived a single day later, the Interna- 
tional Polar Expedition might have left not one survivor. 

Its commander. Lieutenant Greely, had done his whole duty 
with faultless sagacity and unselfish heroism, and its undeserved 
fate, as these pages will clearly establish, was due in the first 
instance to a violation of orders on the part of one officer, and 
in the last to the untimely inaction of another whose personal 
animosity to the Chief Signal Officer blinded him to the re- 
quirements of a great public trust, and led him to disregard 
the supreme exigency, the one critical moment, upon which 
hung the fate of brave men who were acting in the line of their 
duty. That Mr. Kobert T. Lincoln, late Secretary of War, 
on the 15th of September, 1883, held in his hands the awful 
balances of life and death for Greely and his men, and decided 
every chance against them, is now a proposition morally certain, 
and as convincingly demonstrable as any fact which depends for 
proof on an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. 

I proceed to state briefly the undeniable facts and the irre- 
sistible deductions which prove the derelictions of duty that 
first made the Arctic disaster probable, and then made it cer- 
tain. 

Lieutenant Greely, after his arrival at the designated inter- 
national polar station on the western shore of Lady Franklin 
Bay, transmitted to General Hazen, Chief Signal Officer of the 
Army, by the return ship, a plan to govern the proposed relief 
expeditions of 1882 and 1883. 

Lieutenant Greely was familiar with the approaches to his 



8 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

advanced position, had studied the exigencies of his situation, 
and he submitted that plan in the assurance that it would be 
approved and strictly observed. 

General Hazen was morally bound to regard it as imposing 
upon him an obligation as sacred as any that could spring from 
a solemn compact, upon the faithful execution of which de- 
pended the safety of human life. The plan for 1882 contem- 
plated the sending of a steam-sealer, under the command of a 
captain of experience as an ice-master, the relief party to take 
with it five enlisted men of the Army to replace men invalided 
or found unfit otherwise for Arctic work. In case the vessel 
could not reach the station at Lady Franklin Bay, a depot of 
two hundred and fifty rations, with a wall-tent, whale-boat, etc., 
was to be made at or near Cape Hawks ; a whale-boat was to be 
deposited at Cajoe Prescott, and a duplicate of the rations left 
at Cape Hawks placed in depot at Littleton Island, the vessel 
then to leave a record of its proceedings at Cape Sabine and 
depart southward. 

The relief party, under the command of Colonel William 
M. Beebe, General Service, TJ. S. A., sailed from St. John's on 
July 8, 1882, and reached its highest point, latitude 79° 20', 
about twelve miles south of Cape Hawks, on August 10, when 
the vessel {Neptune) was forced back by the ice-floes that were 
driven by a severe gale from the north. It subsequently made 
a depot of two hundred and fifty rations and whale-boat with 
wall-tent, at Cape Sabine, the most northerly landing attain- 
able, and a depot of the same number of rations at Littleton 
Island, and deposited a whale-boat at Cape Isabella. After 
making repeated efforts to penetrate the ice-barriers of Smith 
Sound the vessel started homeward from that vicinity on Sep- 
tember 5, 1882, after all chances for the ice to open that season 
had passed. 

That expedition did everything required of it by Lieutenant 
Oreely's instructions, except that it established its most north- 
ern depot at Cape Sabine instead of at Cape Hawks, which was 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAKTIAL. 9 

not attainable — a most providential circumstance, as the event 
proved. Had that depot been placed at Cape Hawks it would 
not have been available to Lieutenant Greely, while it was of 
priceless value to him and his companions in their famine- 
stricken camp at Cape Sabine. General Hazen has been criti- 
cised by some for not having had a larger amount of stores 
deposited by the expedition of 1882. Such critics are probably 
not aware of the fact that Lieutenant Greely (See appendix) 
had definitely specified in his instructions the quantity and kind 
of stores that he wished deposited by that expedition in case the 
vessel failed to reach him at Lady Franklin Bay, and his in- 
structions were complied with. General Hazen placed the relief 
ship of 1883 at Cape Sabine before Lieutenant Greely could be 
affected by any depot in that vicinity, whether great or small. 

The most thorough preparation was entered upon by the 
Chief Signal Officer to organize and equip the relief expedition 
of 1883. As early as November 1, 1882, he forwarded the plan 
of the expedition to the Secretary of War, who returned it 
without the shadow of dissent, suggesting that the men of the 
relief party might be obtained from the Navy. That change 
General Hazen had no authority to make, for, by virtue of the 
power vested in him by Act of Congress approved May 1, 1880, 
the President had already decided that the personnel of the ex- 
peditions for Arctic work should be drawn from the Army, and 
all subsequent acts of Congress conformed to that decision. 

The following is an extract from his letter transmitting the 
plan of relief to Secretary Lincoln : 

"1 have the honor to enclose herewith copy of plan for relief expedi- 
tion of next year for the Arctic party at Lady Franklin Bay, which plan 
Lieutenant Greely wished followed in the event of a failure to reach him 
this year. This seems to leave us only to follow his plans. ... In sending 
the expedition next year every possible contingency must be provided for, 
and I request, therefore, your approval of this (Greely 's) enclosed plan." 

With the view to the selection of a suitable officer to com- 
mand the relief expedition and of men to compose it from some 



10 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

of our extreme Northwestern posts, General Hazen made appli- 
cation to the Adjutant-General, under date of November 10, 
1882, and thus outlined the qualifications required in such offi- 
cer and men: 

** This will be an expedition requiring the very best manly charac- 
ter on the part of the persons composing it, and it is for this reason I 
now ask aid in fixing upon the proper persons. There should be no pos- 
sible doubt of the character of the officer, who should possess manly quali- 
ties of the first order. Sobriety, high intelligence, unflagging energy and 
zeal, and faculty to command are but a small part of these indispensable 
qualities." 

Lieutenant Ernest A. Garlington, Seventh Cavalry, volun- 
teered for this duty, and, being recommended by General Terry, 
commanding the Department of Dakota, he was accordingly 
detached for Arctic service, February 6, 1883. 

The steam-sealer Proteus, of St. John's, Captain Richard 
Pike commanding, was chartered for the expedition. She was 
the same vessel that had borne Lieutenant Greely so speedily to 
Lady Franklin Bay, and he had highly commended her com- 
mander, who was recognized universally as the foremost captain 
and ice-master in Newfoundland. 

General Hazen decided to sui^plement the plan of Lieuten- 
ant Greely on the line of additional safety, and therefore made 
application to the Navy Department, through the Secretary of 
War, to have a suitable vessel of the United States Navy de- 
tailed as a tender or reserve ship to the Proteus. The Yantic, 
third-rate, commander Frank Wildes, was accordingly assigned 
to that duty. She was placed in dock at New York for proper 
repairs. Her battery was taken off, all her ordnance stores 
landed, and she was sheathed with oak planking from three to 
six inches in thickness, spiked on the outside of her copj)er 
from a little abaft the foremast to her bow, and extending from 
her water-line to about seven feet below. 

In his instructions to Commander Wildes to prepare the 
Yantic for that special Arctic service Rear-Admiral Cooper 
used the following admonitory language : 



THE HAZEN COURT- MAETIAL. 11 

" In making your preparations you will bear in mind that your vessel 
may be absent a long time from port and from depots of supplies, and that 
ehe may encounter severe and stormy weather and ice." 

On June 9 Commander Wildes — the Yantic being still in 
dock— received his instructions from Admiral Nichols, Acting 
Secretary of the Navy, directing him to proceed to St. John's, 
Newfoundland, etc., *'when in all respects in readiness for 
sea." 

Despite these mandatory admonitions. Commander Wildes 
has since stated, over his signature and in his sworn testimony, 
that his early separation from the Proteus after leaving St. 
John's was due mainly to the fact that he had sailed from New 
York before the repairs on the boilers of the Ymitic had been 
completed. And to excuse his precipitate departure from the 
coast of Greenland on September 2, when he had at least, ac- 
cording to his own view, twenty-nine days of the navigable 
season in Melville Bay before him, and was only three days' 
steaming from Cape Sabine, where lay Greely and his party, 
whom Wildes could have rescued with certainty, he states that 
"his men were only provided with a tropical outfit." Never 
before did a commander deliberately start on an Arctic cruise 
with his men equipped for the tropics. 

Lieutenant J. C. Colwell, U.S.N., an officer of the Yantic, 
was detached at St. John's on application of General Hazen, 
through the Secretary of War, to the Navy Department, at the 
instance of Lieutenant Garlington, and ordered to report to 
the latter for duty as a member of the relief expedition. 

Lieutenant Colwell, who had volunteered for this service, 
proved himself always and everywhere fully up to the highest 
standard of the American naval officer. The instructions to 
Commander Wildes required him to fill up the Yantic with 
coal at St. John's, and *' proceed to the northward through 
Davis' Straits in company with the steamer Proteus, if practi- 
cable." . . .'^In view of the possibility of the destruction of 
the Proteus, it is desirable that you should proceed as far north 



12 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

as practicable, in order to afford succor to her officers and men 
in the event of such an accident." He was enjoined further 
not to proceed beyond Littleton Island, or enter the ice-pack, or 
place his ship in a position to prevent her return that season. 

The following clause appears in the instructions issued by 
the Chief Signal Officer to Lieutenant Garlington : 

"A ship of the United States Navy, the Yantic, will accompany you 
as far as Littleton Island, rendering you such aid as may become necessary, 
and as may be determined by the captain of that ship and yourself when 
on the spot." 

The two ships thus tied together, as was supposed, by the 
mandate of their instructions, and required to proceed as con- 
sorts in company to Littleton Island, the Yantic to be there 
*' on the spot " when the Proteus sailed northward in Smith 
Sound, left St. John's June 29, and, by agreement between 
Lieutenant Garlington and Commander Wildes, voluntarily 
separated on the same day. 

They reunited at Godhaven July 12, and the Proteus on 
July 16 again sailed northward alone, leaving the Yantic in 
that harbor engaged in repairing her boilers and taking on 
coal. 

On the afternoon of July 22 the Proteus was at Payer Har- 
bor, Cape Sabine. 

At 3.30 P.M. of that day the solid ice of Smith Sound, ac- 
cording to Lieutenant Garlington's own report, " presented an 
unbroken front — no leads to the north." He landed with his 
party, as he states, "to examine cache there, leave records, 
and await further developments." At 6.30 p.m. same day he 
returned hurriedly to the ship and stated to Captain Pike that 
while observing from the cliff he had discovered an open lead, 
or water-channel, trending far to the northward through the 
ice, and directed him to get under way and enter it. Captain 
Pike objected that the water seen was " no good " ; that they 
were "there too early," and that he wished to remain in harbor 
until he filled his coal-bunkers, which would have taken him 



THE IIAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 13 

about two days. Lieutenant Garlington insisted, and declared 
that the captain would be false to his duty to the United 
States if he did not proceed at once. Thus urged, and tlireat- 
ened with the charge of violating his charter-party, the veteran 
ice-navigator yielded to the lieutenant of cavalry on the ques- 
tion of ice-navigation. The Proteus entered the lead at about 
8 P.M., July 22, and soon found herself, as her captain had 
vainly predicted, enveloped by the solid ice. After every ef- 
fort to extricate her she was crushed, and sunk at 7.15 p.m. 
on the following day at a point about five miles off Cape Sa- 
bine. Before the ship went down some three thousand or more 
rations were landed on the floe, together with twenty- two 
Eskimo dogs. Of the rations landed at least two thousand 
were saved and conveyed to Cape Sabine, where Garlington 
and party, with the crew of the Proteus, repaired and en- 
camped after the wreck. About two boat-loads, estimated at 
seven or eight hundred rations, were suffered to drift away on 
a floe, Garlington refusing to lend Captain Pike one of his 
whale-boats to save them. The dogs were also abandoned on 
the floe, although seven of them were harnessed to a sledge and 
the means of saving them were ample, Garlington having two 
whale-boats and a twelve-foot cedar dingy, together with three 
stout boats of the Proteus. 

Of his two thousand rations or more, Garlington deposited 
but five hundred for Greely and his party at Cape Sabine, the 
point at which he knew they would arrive in September. 

Garlington sailed southward from Cape Sabine on July 25, 
and encamped that night near Life-Boat Cove with his party, 
the Proteus crew proceeding to Pandora Harbor, about ten 
miles farther south. 

Garlington's instructions contained the following mandatory 
clause ; 

"If it should become clearly apparent that the vessel cannot be pushed 
through, you will retreat from your advanced position and land your party 
and stores at or near Life-Boat Cove, discharge the relief vessel with orders 



14 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

to return to St. John's, N. F. , and prepare for remaining with your party 
until relieved next year. As soon as possible after landing, or in case your 
vessel becomes unavoidably frozen up in the ice-pack, you will endeavor to 
communicate with Lieutenant Greely by taking personal charge of a party 
of the most experienced and hardy men equipped for sledging, carrying such 
stores as practicable to Cape Sabine. ..." 

Lieutenant G-arlington had with him also a copy of the plan 
of relief drawn by Lieutenant G-reely, in which, after stating the 
contingency of the relief ship of 1883 being unable to pass 
through Smith Sound, it provided for establishing a relief sta- 
tion, with men and supplies, at Life-Boat Cove, in the follow- 
ing words : 

*' The party should then proceed to establish a winter station at Polaris 
winter quarters, Life-Boat Cove, where their main duty would be to keep 
their telescopes on Cape Sabine and the land to the northward. ... No 
deviation from these instructions should be permitted." 

With the wreck of the vessel the expedition to Lady Frailk- 
lin Bay ended, and the duty of establishing the winter station 
at Life-Boat Cove began. That was the post of rescue for the 
explorers, and the means to establish and maintain it amply 
were at hand. Game was abundant at Life-Boat Cove, Little- 
ton Island, and Pandora Harbor, but none on Cape Sabine side. 

Garlington saw hundreds of seal and walrus — the staple food 
'Of the Arctic— around him basking in the sunlight on the rocks 
.and ice-foot, within easy range of his guns, and their nutritious 
flesh was as certainly attainable by him as if thousands of 
pounds of it had been already canned and deposited in his 
camp. 

Birds also abounded and filled the air with their deafen- 
ing chatter. He was bountifully supplied with arms and am- 
munition. The friendly Eskimo lived in tliat neighborhood. 
His own party had three rifles, a shot-gun, a navy and army re- 
volver, with over one thousand rounds of ammunition, while the 
crew of the Proteus had five shot-guns and six rifles and were 
well supplied with ammunition. 



THE HAZETT COURT-MARTIAL. 15 

It was midsummer, and sixty days before the Arctic night 
would set in. Grarlington professed to be, and doubtless was, 
well read on Arctic Avork and the resources and expedients of 
explorers in that region. 

He had at least on hand forty days' rations for himself and 
party, numbering fifteen in all, and Captain Pike had rations 
for the same number of days for his crew. In addition to this 
Garlington knew that there were two hundred and fifty rations, 
and a tarpaulin, and six and a half tons of coal in depot at 
Littleton Island ; and on the day before the wreck he examined 
the British depot at S. E. Carey Island, and reported that 
seventy-five per cent, of the provisions there stored, or twenty- 
seven hundred rations, were in good edible condition. The last- 
named depot was about one hundred miles south of Life-Boat 
Cove, within three days' travel by whale-boat. In addition to 
the supply of game with which he could readily have stocked the 
station, he thus had within easy access, canned and boxed pro- 
visions sufficient for his party for eight months, and enough to 
supply the Greely party, combined with his own, full rations for 
three months without resort to native food. He knew the 
situation impending over Greely and his men on their expected 
arrival at Cape Sabine in September. He knew that they would 
find themselves there, after an exhausting and perilous journey 
of several hundred miles, with only about forty days' rations to 
face an Arctic winter. Garlington knew that they would come 
into a barren and gameless desert, and that in the month of 
September Smith Sound, twenty-six miles in width, stretcliing 
between them and Life-Boat Cove, would be a torrent of whirl- 
ing ice, and probably impassable for several months by enfee- 
bled men. Yet, turning a deaf ear to the dictates of duty, dis- 
regarding his imperative orders, he announced his purpose to 
retreat southward, stating that he intended to seek the Yantic 
and return with her and establish a winter station. Garling- 
ton knew that the commander of that vessel was bound by his 
orders to reach Littleton Island, if practicable. He had been 



W THE HAZEN COUKT-MAETIAL, 

assured by Commander Wildes, when they separated at Uper- 
navik ten days before, that he '' would get to Littleton Island 
if possible." Garlington knew that his presence with the Yan- 
tic could not add to her means of effecting the passage of Mel- 
ville Bay, or to the stringency of the orders directing her com- 
mander, to proceed to Littleton Island with her as the reserve 
ship of the expedition ; and G-arlington knew that she was then 
en route, or lying near Upernavik, only four or five days' steam- 
ing from Life-Boat Cove. The Yantic, indeed, actually made 
the trip between those points in three days. 

Lieutenant Colwell offered to take a whale-boat and sail 
south in search of the Yantic, while Garlington should remain 
at his post of duty and establish the winter station at Life-Boat 
Cove ; but the offer was rejected. 

Captain Pike on July 28, at Pandora Harbor, assured Gar- 
lington that he knew by experience that the Yantic would cer- 
tainly cross Melville Bay, and urged him to await her arrival for 
a few days at least. This advice was also rejected, and Garling- 
ton sailed southward the same day. Five days later, August 3, 
the Yantic arrived at Littleton Island and Life-Boat Cove, 
touching first at Pandora Harbor. Garlington and his party 
were then distant about one hundred miles, heading for Cape 
York. At that point, on August 16, Lieutenant Colwell was 
detached at his own request, and started to cross Melville Bay 
for Godhaven to communicate with the Yantic, his boat being 
manned in part by a portion of the crew of the Proteus. 

Garlington's boat, in charge of Boatswain Taylor, of the 
Proteus — Captain Pike leading in his boat — was steered for 
Upernavik. 

Garlington was commended by the Proteus Court of Inquiry 
for his skill and energy displayed in conducting the retreat of 
his command across Melville Bay, when the facts prove that on 
such retreat he was a mere passenger, and was helplessly de- 
pendent upon Captain Pike and his officers for guidance. This 
is the first time in military history that an officer was ever com- 



THE HAZEiq- COURT-MARTIAL. 17 

mended for the celerity with which he effected his flight from 
his post of duty to '*a place of safety." He arrived at Uper- 
navik August 24, and there learned that the Yantic had re- 
turned from Littleton Island and gone to Godhaven. Lieu- 
tenant Colwell reached her at that point on August 31, and 
she started the same day for Upernavik, where she arrived on 
the 2d of Septemher. 

Garlington in his report thus notes his departure from 
Upernavik on that day : 

** My own party and the crew of the Proteus were soon aboard, and, 1 
P.M., steamed out of the harbor for St. John's, where we arrived on the 
13th of September." 

In the record that Grarlington deposited at Cape Sahine, July 
24, the day of the wreck, he stated : 

*' The United States steamer Yantic is on her way to Littleton Island 
with orders not to enter the ice. A Swedish steamer will try to reach Cape 
York during this month. I will endeavor to communicate with these ves- 
sels at once, and everything within the power of man will be done to res- 
cue the brave men at Fort Conger from their perilous position." 

On July 26 he left a second record at Littleton Island, in 
which he stated : 

" I am making for the south to communicate with the United States 
steamer Yantic, which is endeavoring to get up. Every effort will be made 
to come north at once for the Greely party. The Yantic cannot come into 
the ice, and she has a crew of one hundred a,nd forty-six men. So will have 
to get another ship. Everything will be done to get as far north as possible 
before the season closes." 

On July 27 he deposited a third record at Pandora Harbor, 
in which he stated : 

"Will go south— keeping close into shore as possible and calling at 
Carey Islands— to Cape York, or until I meet some vessel. Hope to meet 
United States steamer Yantic or the Swedish steamer Sofia, which should 
be about Cape York." 

It is proper at this point to emphasize the fact that Garhng- 
ton did not stop at Carey Islands, a^ he wa;S n,ot only bound to 



18 THE HAZEN COURT -MAETIAL. 

do in accordance with his purpose declared in this record, but 
it was one of the points of rendezvous designated in his agree- 
ment with Commander Wildes on the eye of their separation at 
St. John's. 

Garlington, when afc Cape Parry, only twenty-five miles 
from the Carey Islands, at nine o'clock on the morning of Au- 
gust 2, decided not to proceed to the Carey Islands, and at nine 
o'clock on the night of that very day the Yantic arrived at those 
islands, where Garlington would certainly have met her had he 
not abandoned his previously-expressed intention of calling 
there on his way south. Garlington's Pandora Harbor record 
was found by Commander Wildes on August 3, and on the fol- 
lowing day he returned to the Carey Islands, and, finding that 
Garlington had not called there, he headed the Yantic for Cape 
York after making a further search to the northward. The 
Yantic was within forty miles of Cape York on August 10, the 
very day that Garlington and his party arrived at that point, 
and where they remained for six days ; but, unhappily. Com- 
mander Wildes, deterred by the appearance of the ice, made 
no effort to reach Cape York, but steamed southward for 
Upernavik. Had either Garlington called at the Carey Islands 
on the 2d of August, or Wildes at Cape York on any day be- 
tween the 10th and the 16th of August, the expeditionary 
force would have returned to Life-Boat Cove, and the Cape 
Sab hie tragedy would have been averted. Both of these offi- 
cers thus fatally disregarded the agreement that they had 
entered into before their departure from St. John's. 

In his fourth and final record, deposited at Immeelick Bay, 
near Cape York, on the 12th day of August, he states no pur- 
pose to return ; and although the Swedish steamer Sofia was 
expected by him to arrive in that vicinity, he failed to state, 
for the information of her officers, that Greely and his men 
would, under his instructions, probably arrive at Cape Sabine 
early in September, and would be in great need of supplies. He 
did not leave one line to invoke the aid of any passing vessel in 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 19 

behalf of the men whom he was commissioned to rescue, and 
who he had every reason to know were even then working their 
way down to Cape Sabine, distant only about two hundred and 
sixty miles from Cape York. 

That record of August 12 virtually announced the termina- 
tion of the relief expedition in the middle of the navigable sea- 
son, at least sixty days before it usually came to a close, and 
gave not the faintest intimation of any further effort to rescue 
Greely. I cite the following paragraph from it as fully sus- 
taining this view : 

" From this point Lieutenant Colwell with second whale-boat goes 
direct to Disco, as it is probable that United States steamer Yantic will be 
in that vicinity, the ice having prevented her progress north, and the har- 
bor at Upernavik not permitting a long stay at that place. I, with Pike's 
party, will go hence to Upernavik (his party not being well equipped with 
boats), keeping as close into shore as possible, but on the outside of the ice. 
In the event of no ship coming to my relief 1 will winter at Upernavik, and 
divide my party among the neighboring settlements. Everybody well and 
in good spirits. With God's help we all hope to reach port in safety in 
good time." 

He refers now only to tlie safety of his own party. His de- 
sire to succor Greely had faded out. 

It is important to observe that the obligation resting upon 
Lieutenant Garlington to return at all hazards, if possible, to 
carry succor to Lieutenant Greely and his command, was in- 
creased, if anything could add to it, by his solemn pledge 
deposited at Cape Sabine declaring that " everything within 
the power of man will be done to rescue the brave men at 
Fort Conger from their perilous position." That record also 
stated that the Yantic was on her way to Littleton Island, 
and a Swedish steamer would try to reach Cape York that 
month. 

Lieutenant Greely, as his official report shows, was fatally 
misled by this assurance. Relying upon Garlington's pledge to 
return with a relief ship, he felt bound to await the promised 
rescue at Cape Sabine, instead of pushing his retreat southward 



20 THE HA ZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

before October 20, when the Arctic night set in. That violated 
pledge lured him to bitter disaster. 

On September 2 Garlington stood on the deck of the Tan- 
tic. Tlie time had come to translate into action his declared 
purpose of returning on her to Life-Boat Cove, and there es- 
tablish the winter station for the rescue of Greely and his part}^ 
There was no longer any doubt of the capacity of that ship to 
navigate the ice-fields of Melville Bay, for she had already 
twice made the passage. 

According even to the timorous estimate of Commander 
Wildes, navigation would not close in those waters until Octo- 
ber 1, or for twenty-nine days, and the Yantic had a sufficiency 
of provisions on board, with the means of adding to them at 
Upernavik, to spare safely nine months' supply for the combined 
parties of Garlington and Greely. She in fact returned to New 
York with sufficient rations to have supplied both parties for an 
entire year. But Garlington made no demand upon Comman- 
der Wildes to return with him and his party to their designated 
post of duty. Had he made such demand, representing Greely's 
"perilous position," as he had termed it in the Cape Sabine re- 
cord, Wildes could have refused it only at the manifest hazard 
of being cashiered. 

Garlington had brought away three-fourths of the rations 
saved from the wreck, taking fifteen hundred, when five hun- 
dred would have been amply sufficient for all emxCrgencies, 
while the rest should have been deposited for the explorers 
and would have saved them. He carried away and wasted a 
half-barrel of alcohol — a vital necessity in the Arctic. He could 
have shot and cached the twenty-two dogs he abandoned on the 
floe, averaging not less than fifty pounds, and they alone would 
liave saved Greely and his men from danger of starvation. He 
ai)propriated the stores sent for Greely, when he was going into 
a land of sunlight and plenty, with the Gary Island cache but 
one hundred miles distant in his path, and knowing that Greely 
was coming into a region of darkness and famine. 

Garlington and Wildes having failed in their plainest duty, 
the Secretary of War failed likewise in his. The same apathy 



THE IIAZEN COURT-MAIITIAL. 21 

"which prevented liis mastering the subject when, in 1882, lie 
re[)orlcd to tlie President that he knew of no understanding 
that the International Polar Ex])edition was to be yisited each 
year, also prevented his mastering it in 1883. 

The same unreasoning hostility to the Chief Signal Officer 
and his work which marked his entire official course caused 
him to disregard that officer's wisely-matured plans and sound 
advice, which had the single purpose to rescue the explorers. 
These were the indirect but certain causes that led to the as- 
tounding disaster. 

Garlington, in his official report, thus describes the abun- 
dance of food-su2:>ply on his line of retreat, and unconsciously 
emphasizes his cold-blooded wantonness in appropriating to his 
own use Greely's scanty supplies : 

" On the small islands about Cape Sabine there were ducks and gulls, 
and fi-oni Life-Boat Cove to Cape York the shore and ishmds were alive 
with ducks, lummes, and auks. About Littleton Island we saw at least one 
tiiousand walrus and some seal, in Pandora Harbor a wliite whale, and, 
in the hills back of the harbor, reindeer. ... I am of the opinion that 
if Lieutenant Greely should reach Littleton Island this season he will 
divide his people among the different Eskimo settlements, and the stores 
he will find on his line of retreat, supplemented by the game of that region, 
will be sufficient food for his party during the coming winter." 

Here is a positive admission, by Garlington himself, that he 
had around him at Life-Boat Cove abundant means to stock and 
maintain the winter station that he was sent to establish. 

I invite the attention of the reader to the statements of Sig- 
nal Corps observers Lamar and Ellis, two of Lieutenant Gar- 
lington's most efficient sul)ordinates in the relief expedition, as 
unfolding such a wanton disregard of duty on the part of that 
officer, and such an improvident waste of food on his retreat, 
and general unfitness to command, as must fatigue the indigna- 
tion of every civilized man who peruses them. 

Sergeants Lamar and Ellis are witnesses in every way worthy 
of the highest degree of credit, and Garlington's own report 
attests their efficient and honorable service as members of the 
expedition. 

Sergeant Lamar testified before the Proteus Court of In- 



22 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

quiry, but was directed by the counsel for Lieutenant Garling- 
ton, and by the Court, along a line of examination not calcu- 
lated to elicit the facts contained in those statements. 

The scheme of the inquiry was manifestly to refer the Pro- 
teus disaster and the failure to establish the relief station to 
General Hazeu's instructions, and not to develop the real facts, 
which would have placed the responsibility where it properly 
belonged. 

Upon receiving this information General Hazen promptly 
preferred charges against Lieutenant Garlington. The Secre- 
tary of War, however, refused to permit him to be brought to 
trial before a court-martial, alleging that he was already ex- 
onerated by the Court of Inquiry from all criminal responsi- 
bility, it having found that he had only "erred in judgment." 

General Hazen protested against this view of the case, which 
was unwarranted either by law or practice, as the specifications 
plainly showed, and he had solemnly alleged, that the charges 
were founded, in great part, upon newly- discovered evidence, 
material to the issue, and not elicited by the Court of Inquiry. 

There was no precedent for refusing a court-martial for the 
trial of charges preferred by an officer of high rank who alleged 
that he had proof sufficient to convict, especially where the 
derelictions of duty specified had resulted in great loss of life. 

There can be no doubt that, had Secretary Lincoln been 
satisfied that the charges could not be sustained, he would have 
ordered the Court-Martial, that they might recoil disastrously 
upon the head of the Chief Signal Officer, who liad preferred 
them, and persisted that the accused should be brought to trial, 
despite the finding of a Court of Inquiry. 

These statements, for the first time given to the public, add 
to the already abundant proof that Lieutenant Garlington was 
amply supplied with the means of establishing the winter sta- 
tion, and that, unmindful of the succor due to the Lady Frank- 
lin Bay Expedition, and which it was his sole mission to furnish, 
he carried away from Cape Sabine an amount of provisions so 
far beyond what the exigencies of his proposed retreat demand- 
ed that after the most wasteful excess for thirty-nine days, and 



THE IIAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 23 

feeding his huge dog to repletion daily on tliose precious stores, 
he still had rations for many days on hand. 

Tliat Garlington left Cape Sabine with a great deal more than 
forty days' rations is indicated by his having refrained to state 
the amount of food on hand when he arrived at Upernavik. 

But it has been stated that even had the winter station been 
established at Life-Boat Cove it would have been, as the result 
proved, of no practical value to Greely and his party, as they 
were unable to cross Smith Sound to reach it. 

It is true that Greely, with his enfeebled and dispirited men, 
broken down with hunger and toil, could not battle successfully 
with the swift current, twenty-six miles in width, that separated 
Cape Sabine fi-om Life-Boat Cove ; but Garlington, it is certain, 
with his excellent whale-boats and stout crews, could have 
crossed to Greely during the winter and brought the whole 
party over in safety, and no life would have been lost by starva- 
tion. Upon this point the testimony of Lieutenant Greely, as 
given in the Appendix to this work, is conclusive. Yet, great 
as was the fault of Garlington, it only rendered the tragedy at 
Cape Sabine probable. It was reserved for a higher official to 
make it certain and shut the gates of hope upon Lieutenant 
Greely and his companions. 

Garlington's flight from the Arctic had some merit in its pre- 
cipitancy. It brought him to St. John's in time for a ship of 
rescue to steam from that port to Cape Sabine and return with 
Greely and his party before the navigable season closed. 

On September 13 the Secretary of War was informed by tele- 
graph of the arrival of the Yantic with the relief expedition. 
General Hazen Avas then in Washington Territory, and on re- 
ceiving a dispatch from Captain Samuel M. Mills, Acting Chief 
Signal Officer, announcing the failure of the expedition, he 
sent the following telegram : 

"New Tacoma, W. T., September 15, 1883. 
"To Captain Mills, Washington: 

" It may be necessary to send men with money and authority to Uper- 
navik to organize and send sledging parties with food north to meet Greely, 
who is now probably at Littleton Island on his way south. See the Secre- 
tary about it, and, if the President can authorize the money. Congress will 



24 THE HAZElSr COURT-MARTIAL. 

approve. It will have to be done by telegraph to St. John's, Molloy sending 
man and money by small steamer. It will cost but a few thousand dollars. 
Give the subject careful study." 

That telegram was laid before the Secretary of War on the 
day of its date. On the day before Captain Mills, by authority 
of the Secretary of War, had telegraphed Lieutenant Garling- 
ton as follows : 

"Is the following project feasible? That a steam-sealer be chartered to 
take your party northward, provisioned for crew, passengers, and twenty 
additional men, for one year, to be purchased at St. John's and elsewhere 
en route. Outfit completed, all despatch and steam to Upernavik, thence to 
northernmost attainable harbor west, coast of Greenland, or to Littleton for 
winter quarters. To pick up dogs, sleds, and native drivers in Greenland, 
and lead small party and as much supplies as possible to Littleton Island, or 
to meet Greely if Littleton Island is attained." 

This sagacious and only feasible plan of rescue was what General 
Hazen intended. To this despatch Garlington replied on Sep- 
tember 15 as follows : 

"... The ultimate result of any undertaking to go north at this time 
extremely problematical; chances against its success, owing to dark nights 
now begun in those regions, making ice-navigation extremely critical work. 
There is no safe winter anchorage on west shore of Greenland between Disco 
and Pandora Harbor, except perhaps North Star Bay, winter quarters of 
Saunders. However, there is a bare chance of success, and if my recommen- 
dations are approved I am ready and anxious to make the effort. My plan 
is to buy a suitable sealer, take the crev/ from volunteers from crews from 
Yantic and Powhatan, now in this harbor, paying them extra compensa- 
tion. Lieutenant J. C. Col well to command the ship ; two ensigns and one 
engineer to be taken from those who may volunteer from same ship ; also 
employ competent ice-pilot here. The ship must be under United States 
laws and subject to military discipline. I believe nothing can be done with 
foreign civilian officers and crew." 

This plan was also feasible, although far more costly and in- 
volving much longer delay than the first. 

Those who know the splendid work that has been done in 
the Arctic by the sealing captains and crews of Newfoundland 
will, however, put the foot of their utmost scorn upon Garling- 
ton's imputation that our government could not trust them to 
act faithfully and efficiently under a charter-party. 

On the same day that Garlington's telegram was received 



THE HAZEX COURT-MAKTIAL. 25 

George W. Melville, Chief-Engineer, U. S. N., the foremo>t 
authoiity on Arctic naTiga:ion in this country, telegraphed tlie 
Secretary of the Xayy. urging that "a vessel should he sent at 
once from St. John's, ^.F., to Cape Athol or Cape York, which, 
after landing a rescue party with supplies, tents, boats, and 
sledges, could return immediately before the ice began to make 
too rapidly." He followed that, on the same day, with a letter 
fully elaborating his plan of rescue, from which I make the 
following extract, as it appears in Melville's admirable work, 
recently published, entitled **' The Lena Delta," etc., j^- -il^^ : 

"If landed at Cape York I will undertake to lead a party to Littleton 
Island to conununicate with Greely, and, if his men are able to travel, con- 
duct them to the new base of supplies at Cape York, and encourage tliem 
to hold on." 

Melville's telegram and letter were both laid before Secre- 
tary Lincoln, and he treated them both as he did the urgent 
appeal of the Chief Signal Officer — with indifference. 

On September 15 Captain Mills announced the fatal deci- 
sion of the Secretary of TTar in the following telegram address- 
ed to Garlington : 

"Dispatches received. Expedition this year not considered advisable. 
Will ask for return of your party by naval vessel." 

These two lines compose the death-Avarrant of the nineteen 
members of the International Polar Expedition who died by 
starvation at Cape Sabine. 

General Hazen was at once notified of tliat decision, but, 
having a clear forecast of the disaster impending over Lieu- 
tenant Greely and his party, he still urged that means for 
their rescue should be sent at once. On September 17 he 
telegraphed to Captain Mills as follows : 

" It is very important to get a capable man with money, as high up in 
Greenland as possible, to send sledge parties with native food and clothing, 
under pay and bounties, to meet Greely. See the Secretary and do it, if 
possible, by telegraph to Molloy." 

And on September 19 : 

"Get orders from Danish legation, for men going to Greenland, for all 
Danish authorities to give all possible assistance it can. Telegraph it to St. 
John's." 



26 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

On September 20 he sent the following telegram : 

" If it is too early for sledges, parties must start up in boats." 

On September 23 he sent the following : 

*' Has question been asked St. John's, Can vessel reach at or near 
Upernavik? Greely will retreat south," 

He sent the following telegram, as his final appeal for the 
rescue of the apparently doomed explorers, on the same day as 
the above : 

"Do all in your power to prevent delay of preparation. What I want 
done requires no preparation. Time is more valuable than all else." 

These appeals were all ignored by Secretary Lincoln. 

It is in proof that, at most, he gave but one day to the con- 
sideration of this momentous question, on the true solution of 
which the lives of many brave men depended. He did not 
attempt even to inform himself through an authoritative 
source as to whether it was practicable for a steam-sealer to 
reach Cape Sabine, starting from St. John's between the 15tli 
and the 20th of September. 

That source was pointed out to liim by the telegrams of 
General Hazen, as the United States Consul at St. John's, T. N. 
Molloy, Esq. 

That officer had been honorably connected for more than 
twenty years with the outfitting of American Arctic expedi- 
tions. Through him the Neptune was selected and chartered 
for the relief expedition of 1882 ; and he was the agent by 
whom her supplies were inspected and passed upon. The 
thanks of the War Department had been extended to him in 
1881 for the efficient aid given by him in the outfitting of the 
Lady Franklin Bay Expedition. 

On October 31, 1882, Secretary Lincoln, over his own 
signature, at the instance of General Hazen, addressed a letter 
to the Secretary of State, requesting *'that the thanks of the 
Department be appropriately tendered to Mr. Molloy, Consul 
at St. John's, Newfoundland, for the valuable assistance ren- 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 27 

dered by him in the outfit of the supply expedition to Lieu- 
tenant Greely of this year." The Secretary of War also knew 
that it was through that officer that the Proteus was selected 
and supplies purchased for the relief expedition of 1883. 

Consul Molloy was en rapport with the sealing captains and 
the owners of steam-sealers at St. John's. A single telegram to 
him would have resulted in furnishing the Secretary informa- 
tion of the fact that at the date of his decision there were four 
steam-sealers lying at St; John's, already coaled, and that could 
have steamed out of the harbor for Cape Sabine, fully pro- 
visioned, within forty-eight hours. 

The evidence now given to the public also shows that he 
would have been informed that every ice-pijot at St. John's 
regarded it as certain that a steam-sealer starting as late as 
September 20 could reach Cape Sabine before the navigable 
season closed in Melville Bay. He would also have learned that 
the cost of such steam-sealer, even if she wintered in the Arctic, 
would not have exceeded fifty-four thousand dollars, the char- 
ter-rate being six thousand dollars per month. 

Thus every life would have been saved, and at a cost of seven 
hundred thousand dollars (1700,000) less than was incurred for 
the relief expedition of 1884, which arrived at Cape Sabine 
after nineteen members of the Lady Franklin Bay Expedition 
had starved to death. 

The opinions of Lieutenant Garlington and Commander 
Wildes were manifestly of no value as to the practicability of 
a steam-sealer reaching Cape Sabine at that period of the 
navigable season, for they were known to be without auy ex- 
perience on that special subject, and had actually retreated 
without giving succor when the opportunity was in their 
hands. 

The Secretary states that he consulted Captain Greer, who 
commanded the Tigress in the Polaris search of 1873 ; Cap- 
tain George E. Tyson and Dr. Emile Bessels, both connected 
with Captain Hall's last expedition, which sailed on the Polaris 



28 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

in 1871. He fails, however, to state that he did not consult 
them on the only practical question, which was, whether a 
steam-sealer despatched from St. John's by the 18th or 20th 
of September could reach Cape Sabine or Littleton Island 
that autumn ? Captain Greer's knowledge of that region was 
limited to a single cruise ; but even he could have informed 
the Secretary of War that he had sailed from Igvituk, on the 
west coast of Greenland, in latitude 60° 40' N., as late as Oc- 
tober 4, cruising northward and across Davis Straits, and that 
he remained in the vicinity of Melville Bay, without danger of 
being frozen in, as late as the 9th day of October. He could 
also have informed the Secretary that his consort, the Juniata, 
commanded by Captain Braine, U. S. N. , a vessel only sheathed, 
as was the Yantic, and, like her, a third-rate, started from 
St. John's, N. F., to resume her search for the lost crew 
of the Polaris, sailing from that port for Melville Bay as late 
as September 18, but was overtaken by a British steamer 
chartered by Consul Molloy, which conveyed to him the infor- 
mation that the Polaris crew liad been rescued by a Scotch 
whaler, the Ravenscraig. 

Captain Tyson had a more extended Arctic experience, but 
which had in no degree qualified him as an authority upon that 
special question. Dr. Bessels is high Arctic authority, as he was 
not only the scientist with Hall on the Polaris expedition, but 
had explored the polar regions under the auspices of Peterman, 
the renowned Arctic geographer. He certainly did not advise 
the Secretary that it was too late on September 15 to reach Lit- 
tleton Island witli a steam-sealer sailing from St. John's, for 
Dr. Bessels, but three months after that date, testified before 
the board convened to organize the relief expedition of 1884, in 
reply to a question by General Hazen, that " a vessel can secure 
safe transit south starting from Littleton Island as late as 
October the 15th." 

Chief -Engineer Melville, referring to the rejection of his pro- 
position to rescue Greely, submitted September 15, 1883, says : 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 29 

**But, alas I a board to whom the matter was referred adjudged my 
scheme an impracticable one for several reasons, mainly the lateness of the 
season, albeit whalemen have been known to cruise as far north as Cape 
York so late as October 20. Thus my project for relief was not accepted, 
though the effort could certainly have been made without difRculty or dan- 
ger, it being simply a question of seamanship." 

Chief -Engineer Melville will learn, by reading the proceed- 
ings of the Hazen Oourt-Martial, that not '*a board," but Secre- 
tary of War Eobert T. Lincoln, as he himself asserts, decided to 
send no ship of rescue for Greely in September, 1883, and re- 
jected all propositions submitted to that end. 

The statements of Lieutenant Greely and of ice-navigators 
of Newfoundland, supporting the view of Chief-Engineer Mel- 
ville, will be found in the testimony before the Court-Mar tial. 

I add with confidence that there is not one Arctic authority 
to the contrary. 

It can now be asserted as a proved fact that Melville Bay 
was navigable throughout the entire month of October, 1883, or 
for a period of forty-five (45) days after the date of Secretary 
Lincoln's decision that it was too late to despatch a steam-sealer 
across its waters to Cape Sabine. The importance of this fact 
will be appreciated when it is known that the voyage from St. 
John's to Littleton Island, twenty-six miles from Cape Sabine, 
is readily made by a steam-sealer in fifteen (15) days. The 
Proteus made the trip with Lieutenant Greely and his party, 
in 1881, in fourteen (14) days, although she encountered two 
strong northerly gales, and heavy fogs delayed her thirty-two 
hours. She made the return trip from Cape Sabine to St. 
John's in twelve (12) days. On her second voyage, in 1883, she 
made the trip to Cape Sabine in thirteen (13) days from St. 
John's. 

The Neptune in 1882, carrying the relief expedition of that 
year, made the trip from St. John's to Littleton Island in fifteen 
(15) days, and the return trip from same j^oint in twelve (12) 
days. The time given is exclusive of stoppages in harbors en 
route, but includes all delays by fogs and ice. 



30 THE HAZEN COUET-MARTIAL* 

Tlius it appears that if a steam-sealer had been despatched 
from St. John's for the relief of Lieutenant Greely and his 
party even as late as September 20, she would have had not 
less than twenty-five days of the navigable season before her in 
which to make a voyage to Cape Sabine that was usually made 
in fifteen days. 

Although, as Dr. Bessels testifies, such vessel could secure 
"safe transit south starting from Littleton Island as late as 
October 15," it was not material that she should have returned 
that season. She could have wintered in that vicinity, as was 
well known, in perfect safety, either at Life-Boat Cove or Pan- 
dora Harbor, and her arrival with supplies would have enabled 
the International Polar Expedition to Lady Franklin Bay to 
close its splendid record unmarred by tbe loss of a single human 
life, even had the relief vessel been subsequently lost. 

The Secretary of War asserts, as the prime reason controlling 
his decision, that to have despatched a relief ship in the autumn 
would have been "hazarding more lives in 1883 in a nearly 
hopeless adventure." 

This was lowering a great public duty to the base standard 
of a mere commercial venture. 

Twenty-five men, three of them commissioned officers of the 
United States Army and nineteen enlisted soldiers, were known 
to be in extreme danger of death by starvation. Those officers 
and soldiers were assigned to a perilous field of duty by order 
of the President of the United States, issued through the War 
Department. They had volunteered for that duty upon the 
;Solemn assurance, and in the sincere belief, that all the resources 
'Of their government would be exhausted, if need be, to rescue 
them. Their location was known, and brave men were eagerly 
volunteering for their rescue from impending death, and yet the 
iSecretary of War refused even to attempt to save them, on the 
ground that such attempt would involve hazard to the rescuers. 

Doubtless this was true, and it might have been, as the Sec- 
retary alleges, "perilous in the extreme/' but the honor and 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 31 

good faith of the government were alike pledged to make the 
effort to save the explorers who without such effort were proba- 
bly doomed. 

It required no heroic spirit to arrive at the conclusion that 
lives must be *^ hazarded " often to save life. A mere humanita- 
rian motive would have impelled to such an effort, even though 
success were "nearly hopeless"; but when it was demanded by 
the highest considerations of public duty the refusal to make 
the effort became an act of criminal neglect. 

The late Secretary of "War, being confronted by this inevita- 
ble deduction, and seeing that the logic of events points directly 
to him as the responsible author of the Arctic tragedy, alleges 
that, even had the effort been made, it would have b6en unavail- 
ing ; and in support of this line of defence he cites the following 
from Commander Schley's official report of the relief expedition 
of 1884 : 

"The winter began earlier than nsual and continued with great severity 
late into the spring of 1884. About the equinox (September 21) cold wea- 
ther set in, and the temperature steadily fell at Disco, Upemavik, and Tes- 
suisak, until 60° below zero (Fah.) was reached. This continued for a period 
of sixty (60) consecutive days. Melville Bay was frozen over as far as could 
be seen from these three points early in October. As the season of con- 
tinual darkness had come on by October, the navigation of this region 
would have been well-nigh impossible even if the bay had been open. Un- 
der the circumstances any vessel attempting this navigation would have 
come to grief, if she had not been totally lost. It can be seen now, in the 
light of this new information, that the action of last year was wise and 
proper." 

It does not appear that Commander Schley derived this in- 
formation from any official source. He states in his work, 
recently published, on the "Eescue of Greely," that it was 
"gained at the Greenland ports by the relief expedition of 
1881" 

That gallant officer of the Navy is incapable of an unworthy 
act, but he has by the above statement unconsciously thrown a 
false weight into the scale of controversy. That he has done so 
will be indubitably proved. 



82 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

I cite upon this point from the tables of temperatures fur- 
nished by the Bureau of Meteorology at Copenhagen, Denmark, 
and which are given in full in the Appendix. They are duly 
certified as a correct transcript from the official record. 

By reference to these tables it will be seen that on October 
1, 1883^ the temperature at Upernavik was 33°. 6 above zero ; on 
October 9, 21° above zero ; on October 15, 23°. 7 above zero ; and 
on October 31, 23°.9 above zero. These temperatures are Fah- 
renheit, reduced from Centigrade. The observations were all 
taken at 8 a.m., London time. 

It is shown by this table that the mean temperature for the 
month was -{- 24°. 3, or more than 24° above zero, and that 
the mean temperature for November, 1883, at Upernavik was 
15°. 8 above zero. The mean temperature at that point for 
December was 5°. 3 below zero. 

Upernavik is situated in latitude 72° 47' N. 

To **pile Pelion upon Ossa" in crushing disproof of Com- 
mander Schley's extraordinary statement, I append the tables 
of temperatures as observed and recorded by Lieutenant G-reely 
at Cape Sabine for September, October, and November, 1883. 
It should be here stated that Camp Clay, Cape Sabine, where 
these observations were taken, is in latitude 78° 54' N. It ap- 
pears from these tables that the mean temperature at Cape Sa- 
bine for September was 53° above zero. 

On the first day of October, 1883, the temperature at Cape 
Sabine was 25° above zero ; on the 9th of October, 12° above 
zero ; on the 15th of October, 1° below zero ; and on the 31st of 
October, 2° above zero. The mean temperature for October 
was —2°. 5. Bearing in mind that Upernavik is over 6°, or in 
round numbers 420 miles, south of Cape Sabine, and that they 
are about the same altitude, it is simply incredible that the 
temperature of the more southerly point should have been on 
the 31st day of October 62° lower than at the more northerly, 
even if we did not have the exact Upernavik temperatures. 

Lieutenant Greely's tables of temperatures at Cape Sabine 



THE HAZEN COUKT-MARTIAL. 33 

for November, 1883, furnish still further disproof of the state- 
ment made in Commander Schley's report. 

On the 1st day of November the temperature at Cape Sa- 
bine was 3° below zero ; on the 9th, 23°.5 ; on the 15th, 35° be- 
low zero ; on the 21st, 14° below zero ; and on November 30, 
3° above zero. The lowest temperature for the month was on 
November 15, and the mean for November was 18°.4 below 
zero. 

These tables of temperatures from Copenhagen and those by 
Lieutenant Greely, the result of the most careful observations 
with the very best thermometers, will be regarded as authori- 
tative everywhere, while the temperature as given for Uperna- 
vik by Commander Schley, in the statement cited so confi- 
dently by Secretary Lincoln, will be apt to suggest the remark 
of the astute De Quincey : '' Well, there is nothing that lies so 
much as figures, unless it is facts." 

Commander Schley was equally unfortunate in accepting as 
true the information that " Melville Bay was frozen over as far 
as could be seen from these three points [Disco, Upernavik, 
and Tessuisak] early in October." The tables of temperatures 
above cited show that this was not true ; but I cite from a 
statement of the heroic Sergeant Brainard, given in the testi- 
mony, which proves by actual observation that Melville Bay was 
open even along its northern limit as late as the 4th day of No- 
vember. I quote from the statement as follows : 

" The practicability of a well-equipped steam-sealer reaching Cape Isa- 
bella, and thus rendering efficient aid to our forlorn party, was never for 
a moment doubted by those most capable of judging the dangers and diffi- 
culties which attend ice-navigation at that season of the year. Our opinion 
in this matter was confirmed by the observations of Sergeants Rice and 
Fredericks during the early days of November. Standing near the summit 
of Cape Isabella, they had an uninterrupted view for many miles to the 
southward, and within range of their vision not a piece of ice capable of 
offering the slightest obstruction to a vessel appeared. The waves rolling 
in from Melville Bay and dashing against the cliffs at their feet gave ample 
evidence of the scarcity of ice in the North Water and the feasibility of its 
successful navigation." 



34 THE HAZEN COUET-MARTIAL. 

This extract is taken from a letter addressed by Sergeant D. 
L. Brainard to General Hazen December 9, 1884. 

Cape Isabella is on the west side of Smith Sound, directly 
opposite Life-Boat Cove, and about twenty-eight miles below 
Cape Sabine. 

It should be added that Tessuisak and Disco, the two other 
points named above, are respectively fifty miles north and two 
hundred and twenty-five miles south of Upernavik. 

Commander Schley's fictitious temperature being exposed, 
and shown to vary from the true temperature about eighty (80) 
degrees, his October sea of ice melts into thin air. 

He is equally at fault as to the time the Arctic night be- 
gins. He says it begins in the region under discussion in 
October, while in the northernmost part it does not begin till 
the middle of November, and in the southern portion scarcely 
at all. 

It will be readily conceded that Secretary Lincoln did not 
intend the disaster of which his decision was "the direful 
spring"; but yet, as the adoption of General Hazen's plan 
would have averted it, it is pertinent, in fixing the degree of the 
Secretary's responsibility, to show that he cherished such a deep- 
seated feeling of antagonism to General Hazen as to lead him 
to turn his face away from every proposition, however merito- 
rious, that bore the sanction of that officer, who, on the con- 
trary, was amazed at a spirit of hostility that he deeply regret- 
ted and never intended to provoke. 

As instances of conduct on the part of Secretary Lincoln 
which must be referred to that antagonism, I cite the fol- 
lowing : 

While General Hazen was urging an appropriation by Con- 
gress for the first annual relief expedition of 1882, in accord- 
ance with the view stated by President Hayes in his order of 
April 28, 1880, directing the establishment of the station at 
Lady Franklin Bay, Secretary Lincoln addressed a letter to the 
President, from which I make the following extract, which 



THE HAZEN COUBT-MARTIAL. 35 

plainly shows that his purpose was to defeat such appropriation 
and to deny to Lieutenant Greely all succor in that year : 

"Observing that mention is made by the Actmg Chief Signal Officer of 
an understanding had that the party composing the expedition of last year 
would remain at the point of their destination, to be visited year by year 
whenever the state of navigation rendered it possible, until finally recalled, 
I have to remark that 1 know of no such understanding," 

General Hazen replied to this under date of May 25, 1882, 
showing conclusively that the plan of an annual relief expedi- 
tion '^ was thoroughly understood by the President and by Con- 
gress," as appeared by the Congressional proceedings and by the 
act of March 3, 1881, relating to the Lady Franklin Bay Ex- 
pedition, and Lieutenant Greely had sailed with that under- 
standing. 

Secretary Lincoln had evidently decided, as in 1883, with- 
out due investigation ; but, happily, in the former case his view 
was promptly overruled, for without the supplies deposited by 
the relief expedition of 1882 at Cape Sabine every man of the 
Lady Franklin Bay Expedition must have perished. Altliough 
meagre, they constituted one-third or more of the rations that 
were placed there. 

On April 1, 1883, General Hazen addressed a letter to the 
Secretary of "War for the purpose of showing that the expedi- 
tion to Lady Franklin Bay was not, in fact, a part of the Signal 
Service, and, as it was composed in great part of enlisted men 
detailed from the line of the Army, the payment of its person- 
nel should be made from the appropriations for their support, 
and not out of the appropriations for the Signal Service. He 
also respectfully requested that such branches of the public 
service as the President might designate would furnish such 
supplies in their possession as might be suitable for this special 
Arctic duty. Secretary Lincoln wrote the following endorse- 
ment on that letter : ** The Arctic expeditions originated in 
the Signal Office, and no other Bureau seems to have taken 
the slightest interest in them." This was sent while General 



36 THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 

Hazen was diligently engaged in preparing the relief expedi- 
tion of 1883. 

Not to multiply too greatly instances of the real animus of 
the Secretary of War, I cite the following facts : 

Captain Olmsted, an officer of the Army, had been dismissed 
the service under the sentence of a court-martial for fraudu- 
lently duplicating his pay accounts. Through adroit manage- 
ment he secured his restoration by Act of Congress. 

Captain Olmsted's reputation was well known, and for five 
years he had not been assigned to a regiment. The Chief Signal 
Officer, learning that the Secretary of War intended to assign 
Captain Olmsted to the Signal Corps, respectfully protested 
against it, upon the ground that the officers of the Signal 
Bureau were all disbursing officers, and that Captain Olmsted 
would not be a safe custodian of public funds. This protest 
was disregarded, and Captain Olmsted was assigned to the 
Signal Service by Secretary Lincoln. As predicted, he em- 
bezzled a considerable amount of public money, and in less than 
a year was cashiered upon charges preferred by Ceneral Hazen. 

Subsequently a negro made application to be enlisted in the 
Signal Corps, and was rejected u^Don the ground that by the act 
of July 28, 1866, Congress had provided for two regiments of 
cavalry and two of infantry, to be composed of colored troops, 
and, in the judgment of General Hazen, colored persons could 
only be enlisted in those regiments. This had been the practi- 
cal construction of the act by the War Department for seven- 
teen years. Notwithstanding this declared policy of the gov- 
ernment and the solemn protest of the Chief Signal Officer, 
Secretary Lincoln foisted this negro recruit upon the Signal 
Corps, a select organization, which had always been composed 
exclusively of white soldiers. Both by his forced construction 
of existing laws and by urging hostile legislation he had, 
during his entire four years of official life, endeavored to cause 
the transfer of the Signal Service out of the Army. 

These issues, some of which involved the very existence of 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAKTIAL, 37 

the Signal Service, were commenced by Secretary Lincoln soon 
after he entered office, and were kept up offensively to the end. 
General Hazen was thus placed on the defensive from the be- 
ginning, and many have been led to mistake this forced defence 
against continuous attacks, for unwarranted and captious criti- 
cism of liis official superior by the Chief Signal Officer. 

This action on the part of the Secretary of War, both un- 
natural and opposite to what his predecessors had done, and 
entirely at variance with the views of the President who called 
him into the Cabinet, began before, in the ordinary course of 
duty, he could have known anything about these matters. 

The Secretary of War refers in his last annual report with 
ill-concealed exultation to the Proteus Court of Inquiry as 
having condemned General Hazen's plan for the relief expe- 
dition of 1883. That court could with more propriety cite 
Secretary Lincoln as authority for its findings than he can cite 
it to support his conclusions. On the very day, October 31, 
1883, that he issued the order for its detail, he addressed a 
letter to General Hazen containing an elaborate critical review 
of the very matters that the Court of Liquiry was appointed to 
consider. That letter was given to the press from the Secre- 
tary's office, and widely published, and all of its conclusions 
were substantially conformed to by the court, which in several 
of its findings actually used much of the language in which the 
Secretary of War, who was the real accuser, had already em- 
bodied his promulgated judgment. It presents the most ex- 
traordinary case of judicial complacency on record, suggesting 
strongly the mental sympathy between the courtier Polonius and 
his master, the moody Prince of Denmark : 

" Hamlet. Do yoii see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel ? 

" Polonius. By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed. 

*' Hamlet. Methinks it is like a weasel. 

** Polonius. It is backed like a weasel. 

' * Hamlet. Or like a whale ? 

** Polonius. Very like a whale." 

The court was nominally appointed by the President, but 



38 THE HAZEN COURT-MABTIAL. 

the Secretary of War who thus formulated its findings in ad- 
vance was really the officer who created it and detailed its three 
members. 

It is well known that the then President felt no interest in 
Arctic matters, and that he would not have crumpled a single 
rose-leaf upon his couch, if by turning his body he could have 
discovered the north pole. 

As Secretary Lincoln's letter is comparatively brief, and 
substantially presents the conclusions of the Court of Inquiry, 
which it anticipated, and which are exceedingly diffuse, the 
letter is given in the Appendix. The real facts affecting the 
late Secretary of War are that he was unconsciously moved 
in matters relating to General Hazen by a party of men who 
were bitterly hostile to General Hazen but friendly to himself. 
This was a great and serious impediment to that officer in 
all his official duties during the entire four years. 

It is proper, however, that I should briefly notice the find- 
ings of the court, that it may be shown that they neither spring 
from the evidence, as I have correctly stated it, nor do they 
present any rational grounds for imputing the slightest error to 
the Chief Signal Officer of the Army. The Court of Inquiry 
pronounced the opinion that Lieutenant Garlington, after tlie 
sinking of the Proteus, erred in not waiting longer for the ar- 
rival of the Yantic, and thus obtaining from her supplies to 
establish the winter station at Life-Boat Cove, which, it states, 
" should have been established at all hazards." But the Court 
held that this was only an "error of judgment," and they com- 
mended him for his zeal and energy displayed "in successfully 
conducting his command through a long, perilous, and labori- 
ous retreat to a place of safety." They note as "grave errors 
and omissions " in the action of General Hazen : 

First— "That he did not submit to the Secretary of War for the ac- 
tion of Congress, in the fall of 1883, a sufficient plan with corresponding 
estimates for the organization of a relief expedition to be conveyed in two 
vessels fitted for ice-navigation.'* 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 39 

The all-sufficient answer to this is that the documentary 
evidence was before the Court showing that on November 1, 
1882, General Hazen laid before the Secretary of War for his 
approval the plan for the relief expedition of 1883, and the 
Secretary returned it without dissent, with the suggestion that 
the personnel might be drawn from the Navy. The President, 
however, had previously decided that the expedition should be 
composed of volunteers from the Army. 

The Chief Signal Officer of the Army, under the steady 
opposition that he encountered from the Secretary of War, had 
great difficulty in securing an appropriation to charter and fit 
out even one vessel, which was all the prearranged plans ap- 
proved by the government ever contemplated. Two vessels 
fitted for ice-navigation were, in fact, sent. 

The Yantic proved herself equal to every exigency of her 
Arctic voyage. She traversed the ice-fields of Melville Bay, 
and made the quickest run on record from Upernavik to Little- 
ton Island, accomplishing the distance of seven hundred and 
fifty miles in three days. The fault lay in her dilatory com- 
mander, who lost six precious days by a useless visit to Uper- 
navik to inquire of the authorities how the ice was probably 
moving in waters many hundred miles away from that point. 
If he had sailed directly northward on July 21, instead of mak- 
ing an unnecessary trip to the Kudlisit coal-mine, he would 
have intercepted Garlington before he left Life-Boat Cove, and 
that officer would have then been unable to evade the duty of 
establishing the winter station, thus insuring the safety of 
Lieutenant Greely and his command. 

Second — "In objecting strongly in the fall of 1882 to a proposed en- 
deavor by the War Department to obtain from the Navy the men for the 
relief party of 1883." 

This is answered in part above. The Secretary of War 
never proposed to make any "endeavor." It was a mere sug- 
gestion, as to which the views of the Chief Signal Officer were 
requested. The use of sailors for this service was never con- 



40 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

templated by any one at any stage of the work, and Lieutenant 
Greely, for the best of reasons, objected in the strongest pos- 
sible manner to their use. Having in view the conduct of 
Commander Braine, who, when sent to discover the lost Polaris 
party in 1873, retreated from Littleton Island on the day that 
he arrived there. Lieutenant Greely said to General Hazen: "If 
the Navy engages in this work it will certainly fail you:" 

The after-conduct of Commander Wildes stamps that utter- 
ance as prophetic. 

The expeditionary force was required to serve on land — 
sledging, hunting, etc. — and for such service the soldier was 
better suited than the sailor. 

There is no evidence that the men of the relief expedition 
were not fully equal to every requirement. Lieutenant Gar- 
lington, in his report, thus refers to their excellent conduct at 
the time of the wreck : *'The men of my detachment worked 
as I never saw men work before, and were as cool and collected 
as if it were an every-day exercise." 

Third — ' ' In sending an independent command upon a most perilous 
and responsible as well as distant expedition with only one commissioned 
officer." 

This is neither pertinent nor true. As the officer sent con- 
tinued in command throughout, it does not appear that a sub- 
ordinate officer associated with him, and having no control, 
could have averted the result. As a matter of fact, there were 
two commissioned officers, Lieutenant Colwell, of the Navy, 
having been detached for that service on the application of 
General Hazen. 

Fourth— "In informing Lieutenant Garlington in his instructions 
that Lieutenant Greely's supplies would be exhausted in the fall of 1883, 
when, according to the records in the Signal Office, his command was fully 
provisioned for more than three years from the summer of 1881 ; the 
natural effect being to urge Lieutenant Garlington to undue impatience 
and haste to reach Lady Franklin Bay with all the stores entrusted to his 
charge, and to obscure from his mental vision after the wreck the desira- 
bility of advancing as far as possible northward notice of the disaster, in 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 41 

order that Lieutenant Greely, before coming down too far to go back, 
might, being so warned, retire again to his well-provided station at Lady- 
Franklin Bay." 

The reply to this is that Lieutenant Greely was actually 
proYisioned for only two years and a half from July, 1881 ; and 
allowing for accidents and probable deteriorations, his supplies 
would have been exhausted, in due course, by the winter of 
1883. Even if provisioned for full three years, if he were 
obliged to remain at Lady Franklin Bay by the failure of the 
relief expedition to reach him, his suppliea would certainly 
have been exhausted before he could be relieved by an expedi- 
tion sent in 1884. 

But, according to this finding of the Court of Inquiry, even 
if Lieutenant Greely's supplies had been already exhausted, it 
would have been a grave error in General Hazen to have stated 
the fact in Lieutenant Garlington's instructions, for it was the 
"informing Lieutenant Garlington" that "obscured his mental 
vision " and urged him to undue haste, etc. 

It is indeed singular that ten words in Garlington's instruc- 
tions should so incite his sympathies for Lieutenant Greely and 
his party as to impel him to separate from the Yantic, overrule 
the practised judgment of the ice-master, and urge the ship to 
wreck in the ice-pack, through his impatient desire to advance 
to their relief, and yet have had no influence to arrest his flight 
from his appointed post of duty, where alone he could have 
served them, or to induce him to deposit for them in the day 
of their need a few hundred additional rations, with which he 
could have dispensed, as he well knew, with perfect safety. 

Fifth— ''His persistent rejection of the wisest measure possible for 
him to adopt in the spring of 1883, and which was repeatedly urged upon 
his consideration — to wit, the making, on the northward voyage of the relief 
ship, of a large depot for a winter station at or near Littleton Island (the 
objective point of the projected retreat of Lieutenant Greely), whereby the 
ship would have been lightened of stores which it was in nowise necessary 
to carry to Lady FranklinBay or to expose to the dangers of Smith Sound, 
and whereby the subsequent loss of the vessel would have been of com- 
paratively trivial consequence." 



43 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

This refers to General Hazen's rejection of a scheme framed, 
in his absence, by one of his subordinates, and placed with 
other papers in the envelope containing Lieutenant Garlington's 
instructions, and since known as '^ Enclosure No. 4," and 
which was unsigned. 

It was first brought to General Hazen's attention by Lieu- 
tenant Garlington, who himself very properly objected to it, 
and was at once informed that it would constitute no part of 
his instructions. Lieutenant Garlington so testified upon this 
point before the Proteus Court of Inquiry, and added : ^' We 
then had some conversation about the expedition, in the course 
of which he (General Hazen) told me that he had the utmost 
confidence in me, and that while I should make the attempt to 
follow, as nearly as possible, the plan laid down in the letter of 
Lieutenant Greely which had been written at Fort Conger, 
that I must be governed to a great extent by my own judgment 
on the spot." 

The '* Enclosure Ko. 4," which the Court of Inquiry pro- 
nounces "the wisest measure possible," required that the 
Proteus "should land her stores, except supplies for more 
northerly depots (five hundred rations), at Littleton Island on 
her way north." 

It would have been an act of midsummer madness in General 
Hazen if he had given such instructions. 

It is weU known to all who are familiar with the history 
of Arctic explorations that after passing the seventy-eighth 
degree of latitude the danger of being unable to return is 
immeasurably increased by every degree that the explorer ad- 
vances northward. 

The Act of Congress required that the relief expedition of 
1883 should proceed to Lady Franklin Bay, and, if practicable, 
return, with Lieutenant Greely and his party, on board the 
Proteus to the United States. 

The contingency had to be provided for of the Proteus 
reaching Greely's station near the eighty-second parallel, and 



TH:te HAZEN COTJET-MAETIAL. 43 

there being detained with her crew and the combined parties, 
an aggregate of sixty-two (62) persons, for a year or more, 
before they could escape southward or be reached by another 
rehef expedition. 

The report of Lieutenant Greely from Fort Conger under 
date of August 15, 1881, had abeady given admonition of the 
extreme danger of such detention. The Proteus was stopped 
by the ice when within eight miles of that point, and it took 
her seven days to advance that distance. It appears, further, 
that on her southward trip it took her six days to traverse about 
the same distance through the ice-floes of Lady Franklin Bay, 
and she was extricated with great difficulty. 

That contingency was recognized by General Hazen in his 
*' Instructions for closing the scientific work at Camp Conger," 
under date of June 4, 1883, and which were placed in Lieu- 
tenant Garlington's hands for delivery to Lieutenant Greely. 
The eleventh paragraph of those instructions contains these 
words : '' Should your combined party be held in the ice at 
Camp Conger, or remain during the winter of 1883 and 1884 
at Life-Boat Cove," etc. 

This contingency could only be provided against by the 
relief ship carrying with her the supplies adequate to meet it. 
Even with all the relief stores carried to Lady Franklin Bay 
they would have supplied the combined parties for less than 
ten months. 

This contingency was entirely ignored by the plan which the 
Court of Inquiry so complacently designates as "the wisest 
measure," while it makes the remarkable statement that to 
have landed the stores on the way north would not have been 
a departure from Lieutenant Greely's instructions, when, in 
fact, no departure could have been more radical. 

No Arctic expedition had ever pursued the course which 
that plan proposed. 

The last British expedition to Lady Franklin Bay and 
beyond, under Sir George Nares, had taken all of its supplies 



44 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

northward, except those which had been placed in a few small 
depots as it advanced. Those depots, established in 18.75, were 
still in existence, and Lieutenant Garlington was instructed to 
examine them on his way north, and replace all articles of 
damaged food found therein. That duty he failed to perform 
at S. E. Carey Island, where thirty-six hundred rations were 
deposited, thirty (30) per cent, of which he found damaged, but 
replaced none. 

He also neglected it at Cape Sabine, although he landed in 
the vicinity before the wreck, the two hundred and forty 
rations originally deposited in the British depot there being 
afterwards found by Lieutenant Greely in a state of decay 
and utterly useless. This was a fatal violation on the part of 
Garlington of the plan of relief. 

With reference to this neglect of duty Lieutenant Greely 
wrote, under date of April 30, 1884, at Cape Sabine, when he 
believed himself dying, in a letter addressed to General Hazen, 
as follows : '^ I cannot refrain from saying that had Lieutenant 
Garlington carried out your orders and replaced the two hun- 
dred and forty rations rum and one hundred and twenty alcohol 
in English cache here, and the two hundred and ten pounds 
mouldy English bread, spoiled English chocolate and potatoes, 
melted sugar, and the two hundred and ten pounds rotten dog- 
biscuit, we would, without doubt, be saved." 

The contingency of the Proteus being Wrecked in Smith 
Sound General Hazen had the right to assume was fully pro- 
vided for when, upon his application, the Yantic was detailed 
as a reserve ship to meet any emergency that might arise in 
those waters, and, in the language of Commander "Wildes' in- 
structions, '^ in view of the possibility of the destruction of the 
Proteus, to afford succor to her ojB&cers and men in the event of 
such an accident." 

That Lieutenant Garlington voluntarily separated himself 
from the Yantic, and that she was a thousand miles away when 
the Proteus was wrecked, and that Garlington started south- 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 45 

ward without awaiting the arrival of his reserve ship, that was 
then steaming to Littleton Island as fast as her engines could 
drive her, were events certainly not due to the plan of the relief 
expedition, and clearly beyond rational anticipation. 

The scheme of leaving the stores of the relief expedition two 
hundred and fifty miles south of its objective point, where the 
greatest hazard was to be met, could only be commended on 
the absurdly untenable ground that those events, so evidently 
beyond all forecast, should have been foreseen by General 
Hazen. 

Had he conformed to that scheme, and had the combined 
parties come to grief at Lady Franklin Bay, General Hazen's 
conduct, being without precedent and in violation of the plan 
of Lieutenant Greely, would have placed him in an attitude ut- 
terly indefensible and left him " open to his enemies." 

Sixth — "In failing to perceive a necessity for a second vessel until 
nearly the middle of May, 1883, or to advise the Navy Department of what 
such tender was wanted to do or how far it was wanted to go until a fort- 
night later, whereas a definite and explicit request ought to have been 
made immediately after the enactment of the appropriation which author- 
ized the expedition two months sooner, and that much longer notice given 
to enable a more complete fitting of a ship for the purpose." 

The reader would naturally conclude, from the language of 
this finding, that General Hazen had, in disregard of the dic- 
tates of common prudence, failed to make requisition for the 
reserve ship until the day fixed for the sailing of the expedition 
was so near that it was impossible to properly prepare such ship 
for the special Arctic work required of her. 

The incontestable facts to the contrary stamp this finding as 
a marked illustration both of the suppressio veri and the sugges- 
f 10 falsi. The requisition for the naval tender was made on May 
14, and the Yantic, being detailed for that service, was placed 
in dock at the New York Navy Yard to be specially fitted 
therefor. There was no suggestion from any quarter that it 
was too late to fit and equip her for a voyage to Littleton Island. 



46 THE HAZEN COUET-MARTIAL. 

Indeed, except from General Hazen, there was no suggestion 
that there should be any reserve ship at all. 

Lieutenant Greely had sailed in the Proteus in 1881 for 
Lady Franklin Bay without a reserve ship, and there was no 
reserve ship detailed to accompany the Neptune, that bore the 
relief expedition of 1882, nor did the original plan approved 
by the President contemplate any. 

The plan of the expedition for each of those years was sub- 
mitted to Secretary of War Lincoln and approved by him, as 
was the original plan for the relief expedition of 1883 ; and, 
although each plan contemplated the use of only one ship, he 
made no suggestion that she should have any consort. It was 
a measure of prudence that sprang from General Hazen's judg- 
ment alone. 

While the Yantic was in dock, on the 9th day of June, 1883, 
her commander (Wildes) received his instructions. In those 
instructions, as already cited, it is seen that he was directed to 
sail "when in all respects in readiness for sea." No day had 
been fixed for the sailing of the expedition from New York, 
and Commander Wildes was not hurried in his preparations by 
General Hazen, who could exercise no authority over that offi- 
cer. Certain it is that Commander Wildes, on or about the 
10th day of June, had the Yantic taken out of dock, and he 
sailed from New York on June 13 for St. John's, N. F., 
without giving the slightest intimation that she was not "in 
all respects in readiness for sea." 

That it afterwards appeared that Commander Wildes had 
sailed before he was in readiness for sea, and that the repairs 
on the boilers of the Yantic, not being completed when she left 
New York, conduced to her separation from the Proteus, and 
to her absence when that vessel was wrecked, cannot be truth- 
fully charged as " a grave error and omission " on the part of 
General Hazen, It was simply a violation of orders by Com- 
mander Wildes. Certainly, if the commander of the Yantic 
had reported that he required a week or two weeks longer to 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 47 

complete the repairs upon her boilers, there was no exigency 
that would have denied him that additional time before he 
sailed from New York. 

The following letter of General Hazen's shows where the 
delay in preparing these expeditions was. In this connection 
it should be noted that the act making an appropriation for 
this relief expedition was not approved until March 3 : 

"Office of the Chief Signal Officer, 
Washington, D. C, April 6, 1881. 

** To ihe Honorable (he Secretary of War : 

** Sir : I am unable to take the action at once necessary in the matter 
of the Lady Franklin Bay Expedition until I am furnished with the formal 
approval of the Secretary of War. 

"It is now twenty-seven days since this action was asked, and, al- 
though I have since twice written for it after it was formally given by Sec- 
retary Ramsey, it has not been furnished me, although copies of the papers 
on which it was given have been furnished. 

"Authority to use the appropriation of $25,000, when available, which 
has also been asked, is imperatively necessary before any steps can be taken 
in the way of preparation. This is needed at once, since the St. John's 
steamer, which leaves New York but semi-monthly, sails the 8th inst., and 
it is necessary to send letters by her, by which we will save two weeks of 
time. 

"My great desire to expedite this work, so dependent for success on 
early action, must be my excuse for what might otlierwise appear unneces- 
sary haste. 

" I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

"W. B. Hazen, 
''Brig, and But. Maj.-Gen., Chief Signal Officer, U.S.A.'' 

The following shows that the Court of Inquiry was also at 
fault in stating that General Hazen failed to state in his requi- 
sition for the naval tender on May 14, 1883, the special service 
for which she was required : 

"Office Chief Signal Officer, 
Washington City, May 14, 1883. 
" To the Honorable the Secretary of War : 

" Sir : In relation to the relief ship to be sent to reach and bring back 
the party now at Lady Franklin Bay, since it is impracticable under the 
present provision by Congress to have but one vessel, and as it will limit 



48 THE HAZEIN" COURT-MAETIAL. 

the saiety of Arctic parties to the contingency of the successful voyage of 
this one ship, it is respectfully requested that the Secretary of the Navy be 
communicated with, with a view to his sending a ship of that branch of the 
service as escort, to bring back information, render assistance, and take 
such other steps as may be necessary in case of unforeseen emergencies. 

" She need not enter the ice-pack nor encounter any unusual danger. 
I believe this step to be in the interest of careful and humane policy. 

" I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

''W. B. Hazen, 
''Brig, and Bvt. Maj.-Gen., Chief Signal Officer, U.S.A." 

Seventh — " The omission of proper directions and measures for stow- 
ing the cargo of the Proteus, in order that the most important material for 
the purposes of the expedition should be readily accessible in an emergency, 
owing to which omission it was unknown to either Lieutenant G-arlington or 
the master of the ship where the arms and ammunition provided for the 
party were stowed, and upon the loss of the ship the command was left with 
only the few arms and comparatively small amount of powder and shot that 
had been kept in their personal possession. The instructions to Lieutenant 
Garlington were insufficient, while he was denied permission to proceed in 
advance to St. John's to attend to the matter, which was committed to the 
sole care of a non-commissioned officer, who wholly failed to attend to it, 
not even going to St. John's for the purpose. If a sufficient quantity of 
arms and ammunition had been saved a cache of them might have been 
made for the use of Lieutenant Greely, the amount of whose supply of this 
indispensable material has not been made known to the Court, and, how- 
ever ample it might have been originally, by this time may be entirely ex- 
hausted." 

Odg would conclude from this finding that General Hazen 
had purposely neglected to have the relief stores so marked 
and stowed as to be readily accessible and that each parcel 
might be identified in the emergency of an impending wreck, 
and that he unwarrantably denied to Lieutenant Garlington all 
knowledge of the stowage of the relief ship, and thus prevented 
a larger amount of supplies being saved from the wrecked 
Proteus. 

Yet no conclusions could be farther from the truth. The 
uncontradicted testimony before the Court of Inquiry shows 
that Sergeant Wall, who had served efiiciently as supercargo 
on the relief expedition of 1882, was ordered by General Hazen 
to proceed to St. John's and attend to the stowing of the relief 



THE HAZEIS- COUET-MAKTIAL. 49 

stores, marking each parcel properly, as was done in the case 
of the Neptune, and make an exact list of tlie same, designat- 
ing its locality in the ship. Sergeant Wall proceeded as far as 
Halifax and returned, reporting that he had been injured by a 
fall. This afterwards proved false, and he was tried and con- 
victed by a court-martial upon charges preferred by General 
Hazen, and is now undergoing sentence. 

When Lieutenant Garlington applied for leave to precede 
his command to St. John's, in order that he might attend to the 
stowage of the relief stores. Sergeant Wall's dereliction was not 
known ; and as there was danger of the command being greatly 
reduced by desertions, two men detailed from Lieutenant G-ar- 
lington's own company having already deserted from the ex- 
pedition, it was not deemed prudent to detach that ofi&cer to 
perform a duty which Sergeant Wall could have efiSciently exe- 
cuted. 

The proof was before the Court of Inquiry that the expedi- 
tion suffered no detriment on this account, and that the facts 
stated in this finding had no influence on the result. 

Lieutenant Garlington during bis eight days of detention at 
St. John's unloaded and restowed a large part of the relief 
stores ; and during his nine days' stay at Godhaven he again 
broke out and examined the stores, and made up and marked 
the packages for depots that he was to establish en route. He 
had ample opportunity to unload and load all his stores several 
times over while at those two points. He does not allege that 
he could have saved a single ration more than he did save had 
he personally superintended the stowage of the relief stores. 
He does not claim that the alleged paucity of arms and ammu- 
nition after the wreck influenced his conduct in any respect, or 
that if he had saved those that were stowed in the ship he 
would have cached them for Lieutenant Greely's use. 

The fact is that Lieutenant Garlington had at his command, 
after the loss of the Proteus, a much larger supply of arms and 
ammunition than he had originally made requisition for, as he 



OO tHE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

had only called for four (4) carbines and three thousand (3,000) 
rounds of ammunition. 

Lieutenant Oolwell testified that after the wreck Garling- 
ton's own immediate party had in their possession a shot-gun 
with eighty-six cartridges, a Hotchkiss rifle with five hundred 
rounds, two Winchester rifles with probably a thousand rounds, 
and an army and a navy revolver, while *^ the crew of the Pro- 
teus had. eleven guns — five shot-guns and six rifles — with a good 
supply of ammunition." 

It is well known that Lieutenant Greely when at Cape Sa- 
bine was amply supplied with arms and ammunition. He 
needed food and not firearms. Had arms been deposited there 
for his use he might well have exclaimed : "I asked for bread 
and ye gave me a stone." 

Eighth — This relates to Enclosure No. 4, and has already 
been replied to, in part, in considering the fifth finding. • It cen- 
sures General Hazen for not withdraAving that unsigned paper 
when Lieutenant Garlington brought it to his attention, al- 
though the proof is that he promptly repudiated it and stated 
to that officer that it formed no part of his instructions. Gene- 
ral Hazen is further censured in this finding for alleged negli- 
gence in keeping the records of his ofiice, because the subordi- 
nate who intruded that scheme into Gariington's papers had, 
without General Hazen's knowledge, recorded it as an enclosure 
to the instructions. 

Ninth — This imputes it to General Hazen as a grave omis- 
sion that he did not have Lieutenant Garlington furnished with 
a copy of the instructions of the Navy Department to the com- 
mander of the Yantic. 

The proof is that Garlington before leaving St. John's had 
full knowledge of Commander Wildes' instructions, and en- 
tered into a written agreement with him on the basis of those 
instructions. They were also sufficiently indicated in the in- 
structions issued by General Hazen to Lieutenant Garlington. 

It has never been claimed by Lieutenant Garlington that his 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 51 

action in the premises was at all affected by tlie fact that he 
was not furnished with a copy of the instructions that were 
issued to Commander Wildes. 

These are the much-vaunted findings of the Proteus Court 
of Inquiry. 

General Hazen was not represented by counsel before it, and 
hence no exposure of its untenable positions appears in its pro- 
ceedings. 

It is well said in the one hundred and fifteenth Article of 
War that " courts of inquiry may be perverted to dishonorable 
purposes, and may be employed, in the hands of weak and envious 
commandants, as engines for the destruction of military merit.*' 

I have correctly stated the facts that were in proof before 
that Court, and the reader who peruses the findings, in the light 
of the evidence, will be apt to conclude that they will take about 
the same rank in military jurisprudence that Commander Schley's 
reported Upernavik temperatures occupy in meteorology. 

It is not intended to impute to the Court of Inquiry any- 
thing more than an "error of judgment" — that new method of 
granting official absolution. 

The letter of Secretary Lincoln was well calculated "to ob- 
scure from" its "mental vision" the true deductions to be 
drawn from the facts in evidence before it. 

Lieutenant Garlington was certainly fortunate in having a 
tribunal so benign to pass upon his conduct. Its judgment has 
shielded him thus far from the hazard of a court-martial for his 
trial on charges which General Hazen has preferred against him. 

The student of naval history will recall the fact that Ad- 
miral John Byng, of the British Navy, after his failure to en- 
gage the French fleet with his entire squadron off Minorca 
in 1756, demanded a court of inquiry, which found that he 
"may have erred greatly in his judgment," but that he was 
"not blameworthy." 

He was, notwithstanding, brought to trial before a court- 
martial, which, while it held that he had not been guilty either 



52 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

of cowardice or treachery, found him guilty of ** haying failed 
to do Ms utmost to relieve the garrison of Minorca, as. it was 
his duty to haye done," and sentenced him to be shot to death 
with musketry. 

The court-martial, composed of officers eminently humane, 
pronounced this sentence as in accordance with the mandates 
of military law, while at the same time earnestly recommending 
the accused to mercy. Their appeal for clemency, howeyer, 
was unayailing, and Admiral Byng was executed pursuant to 
sentence. 

The Proteus Court of Inquiry by its findings, and Secretary 
Lincoln by his subsequent refusal to order a court-martial for 
the trial of Lieutenant Garlington, haye erected a much lower 
standard of duty for the American officer. 

The letter of General Hazen to Secretary of War Robert T. 
Lincoln, and its enclosures, together with the alleged newspaper 
criticism which led to the Court-Martial, are giyen in the text. 

I prepared challenges to seyen of the thirteen members of 
the Court, on the ground of prejudice against the accused, 
but, under instructions from General Hazen, I finally challeDged 
but one, and that challenge was sustained, although the officer 
challenged (Brigadier-General Robert Macfeely) declared, and 
doubtless with perfect sincerity, that he could do impartial jus- 
tice to the accused. 

The Court-Martial, we are bound to assume, did its duty as 
it saw it, impartially, and with an eye single to what it deemed 
the best interests of the military seryice. 

That General Hazen did his duty also, fearlessly, faithfully, 
and sagaciously, in all things committed to his administration 
as the Chief Signal Officer of the Army, the unimpeached eyi- 
dence clearly establishes. 

That Court adjudged that he should be censured, and the 
penalty has been inflicted. 

Its infliction has not in anywise diminished the just self- 
respect of the accused, nor has it yindicated the accuser. It 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 53 

were far better that an honorable officer of the Army should 
incur a thousand official censures, or even forfeit his well-won 
commission, than rest under the imputation that through his 
neglect or mistakes the agonies of starvation, and death in its 
most excruciating form, were visited upon a large number of 
brave men who were worthily engaged in the service of their 
country. 

It would have been gracious and truthful, and befitting his 
high office, if Secretary Lincoln had said : ''In all things man 
is fallible, and his best-laid plans may prove faulty. I erred 
in not dispatching a vessel for the relief of Lieutenant Greely 
and his party after the return of the Ya7itic, and it is but just 
to state that General Hazen did his utmost to have it sent, but 
it then appeared to the War Department that there were suffi- 
cient reasons why it should not be sent." 

Instead of this the Secretary engaged in a malign endeavor 
to fix culpable neglect upon that officer, imputing to him re- 
sponsibility for a disaster that he (General Hazen) clearly fore- 
saw and had distinctly pointed out the true means of averting. 

Although not in evidence before the Court-Martial, it is now 
an open secret, derived from official sources, that on the return 
of the Yantic the President requested the Secretaries of the 
War and Navy Departments to take concurrent action in the 
matter of sending an expedition for the relief of Lieutenant 
Greely and his party. 

The Secretary of the Navy was absent when that request 
was made, and the Secretary of War assented to General Hazen's 
plan of dispatching a steam-sealer as a ship of rescue from St. 
John's. On the return of the Secretary of the Navy it was de- 
termined that a naval expedition should be sent in the following 
spring, and the plan that looked to immediate relief was aban- 
doned, and the Arctic explorers starved that the Navy might 
be glorified. This was indicated in the remonstrance sent by 
the two Secretaries to Congress against offering a general bounty 
to any one who would effect the rescue. 



54 THE HAZEN COUET-MAKTIAL. 

To silence criticism after famine had done its deadly work 
at Cape Sabine, the Secretary of War sought to discredit and 
crusii General Hazen, and as a last resort Commander Schley's 
Munchausen report on temperatures was invoked. 

There is no principle of good morals that calls for silent 
acceptance of injustice, but, on the contrary, eyery dictate of 
true manhood urges to prompt and efficient remonstrance. 

To the end of self -vindication the Chief Signal Officer in- 
curred the hazard of a Court-Martial. While this Oourt-Martial 
could not pass judgment upon the question whether Secretary 
of War Robert T. Lincoln was responsible for the final disaster 
to the Lady Franklin Bay Expedition, yet it could not, under 
the rules of evidence, exclude the documentary proof enclosed 
in General Hazen's letter, which has made the fact of that re- 
sponsibility apparent. 

In this regard General Hazen may gratefully say of his 
trial by court-martial : 

" Sweet are the uses of adversity, 
Which, like the toad, ugly and venomous. 
Wears yet a precious jewel in his head." 

While this trial, however, has served to vindicate the truth 
of history by disclosing the really responsible authors of the 
Arctic tragedy, it is believed that it will have a still wider scope 
by conducing to greatly-needed reforms in the law and practice 
of courts-martial. It came at a time when public attention had 
been attracted to the methods of this class of tribunals, as illus- 
trated in the case of Brigadier- General David G. Swaim, Judge 
Advocate-General of the Army, and was had before a court- 
martial composed, in great part, of the officers who sat upon 
that trial. 

That those officers were in character and attainments emi- 
nently worthy of their high rank tends only to make more 
apparent the evils of the system which they reflected in their 
organic action. 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 55 

The term court-martial, although it relates to a military 
code, suggests judicial functions, and when such a tribunal dis- 
regards the forms of law, and by its procedure dej^arts from the 
judicial character, it offends against that exalted idea of im- 
partial justice which the American citizen is wont to associate 
with the very name of ^' court." 

This springs from that inherent respect for judicial autho- 
rity which is the great conservative force of organized society. 

Hence it is that, among every free and enlightened people, 
the altitude of the judge measures the moral elevation of the 
community. While it is true that a court-martial is not in any 
statutory sense a part of the judiciar}", its members perform 
judicial functions, and, to this extent, are properly held amen- 
able to the judicial standard. Although of special and limited 
jurisdiction, it is called into existence by force of express statute 
law, and is vested with all the attributes of a court, administer- 
ing oaths, hearing and deciding issues of law and of fact, re- 
cording its proceedings, and pronouucing sentence. For this 
reason a court-martial is held bound by the common law of the 
land in regard to the rules of evidence, as well as other rules of . 
law, so far as they are applicable to the manner of proceeding. 
(Adye on Courts- Martial, 45 ; 2 Mc Arthur on Courts-Martial, 
33 ; and 3 Greenleaf on Evidence, 468.) 

A court-martial, however, in its recognized relation to exe- 
cutive authorit}', differs from all other judicial bodies, as its 
judgments do not take effect until confirmed by the officer who 
convened it. As such officer is also vested with the power to 
refer its findings back for its own revision, and may, by the cus- 
tom of war, censure the court for what he deems grave errors 
in its proceedings, it follows that the safeguards which protect 
every other class of judicial tribunal from being swerved from 
the strict line of duty by executive dictation are, in this respect, 
denied the members of a court-martial. The danger of dicta- 
tion or undue influence is immeasurably increased when the 
accuser is a high officer of the government, such as the Secre- 



56 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

tary of War, who, as to tlie military establishment, is the special 
adviser and organ of the President, the Commander-in-Chief 
of the Army and Navy. 

Mr. Tytler, in his essay, on Military Law, in which he treats 
of the practice of courts-martial in England, says upon this 
point : *' The members of a court-martial cannot boast the same 
independence of the Crown, and consequent immunity from 
influence, as the judges in the ordinary courts of law. The 
officers who compose a military tribunal are all necessarily de- 
pendent for their preferment on the Crown and its ministers ; 
they are even in some degree under the influence of their gen- 
eral-in-chief — powerful motives of opinion, and which might 
sometimes lead astray a weaker mind from the direct path of 
justice." 

To this may be added that the habit of mind in the mili- 
tary service, and especially with mature officers of high rank, is 
eminently one of respect for authority, reaching naturally from 
the office even to the person of the officer. This idea of loyalty 
impels to faithful service, and is generally inseparable from it. 

But it tends to make the members of a court-martial par- 
tial judges, and this unconsciously and without even the color 
of impure motive, when the highest official is the accuser and 
practically selects the court. 

Under such circumstances there cannot be an impartial 
court. A junior officer expressing his opinion in good faith as 
to a matter vital to his reputation, and in respectful terms, is 
thus made liable to a court-martial, if his superior had previ- 
ously expressed a contrary opinion, and conviction would follow 
almost to a certainty, as in our practice ^ bare majority can con- 
vict. 

As illustrative of the practical operation of the present sys- 
tem, it will be instructive to refer to a feature that marked the 
recent trial of General D. G. Swaim above referred to. 

This reference is made without regard to the merits of that 
case and the justice of the findings therein, as to which there 



THE HAZEN" COUET-MAETIAL. 57 

are widely divergent opinions among those who have carefully 
considered the evidence. 

The Court-Martial, after due deliberation, which involved the 
consideration by them of a record covering several thousand 
pages, rendered its findings and pronounced its sentence. 

The proceedings were forwarded in due course through the 
War Department to the President, who was, in law, the review- 
ing authority, although it was an open secret that Secretary of 
War Eobert T. Lincoln, who was actively interested in the pro- 
secution, did in fact review them. 

The sentence of the Court was the final judicial act which 
determined the penal grade of the offence. 

The power to graduate the penalty to the nature of the 
offence, and its proved degree, was vested by law in the Court- 
Martial, and once exercised it was legally exhausted. 

The President's functions were limited solely to approving 
or disa]3proving the findings, with the power to pardon abso- 
lutely or to remit the sentence in part. 

These limitations, however, which the law would appear to 
have prescribed, had been extended by custom, by the practice 
of the Horse-Guards, derived originally from the British mili- 
tary system, which, without any express sanction of law, per- 
mitted the reviewing authority to except to a sentence and 
refer it back to the court-martial with his objections and a 
recommendation that it should be changed, so as to con- 
form it to the grade of the offence as it appeared to such 
autliority. 

The practice had received legislative recognition in England 
for the purpose only of restricting it. 

The Mutiny Act, enacted by Parliament in the year 1750, 
limits the power of the reviewing authority, and imposes its 
restriction even upon the king himself. I cite from the fifteenth 
section of that act, as follows : 

"No sentence given by any court-martial, and signed by the president 
thereof, shall be liable to be revised more than once.'^^ 



58 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

In the case of General Swaim the President, through the 
Secretary of War, returned the sentence with the requirement 
that it should be made more severe, and the Court increased the 
penalty and again forwarded its proceedings for executive ap- 
proval. 

The sentence was again returned with the view to have the 
penalty further increased, and again the Court conformed to 
the demand of the reviewing officer. 

The varying record is thus made to show three distinct sen- 
tences pronounced upon the same officer in one case, for the 
same offence, and by the same Court, on the same state of 
facts. 

That there was not a fourth sentence we must attribute to 
the fact that a fourth was not demanded. 

The president of that Court, Major- General J. M. Schofield, 
and his co-members, would have added new lustre to their 
honorable records as soldiers if they had proved themselves equal 
to their doty as judges, and refused to yield to a dictation which 
they could not obey, contrary to their own convictions, with- 
out confessing themselves the mere servitors of the executive in 
a cause that they were solemnly sworn to judge '' according to 
the evidence." But if the scales of justice are thus made to 
lose their balance under the direct pressure of the executive 
hand, the aberrations of a court-martial may be scarcely less 
apparent when its action is controlled by an undue deference to 
the official station of the accuser. 

This would seem to appear by reference to the proceedings 
in the case of General Hazen. 

The second specification alleged that the Chief Signal Officer 
of the Army ^* addressed and sent the letter in question to the 
Secretary of War, without having been requested or authorized 
by the Secretary of War so to do." 

The Court refused to strike out this specification on motion 
of counsel for the accused, although it was made evident that, 
admitting it to be true, it was not an offence, either under the 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 59 

Articles of War or by the custom of the service. The question 
was an embarrassing one to the Court, for the Secretary of War 
had himself formulated the charge and specifications, and to 
strike that out was to declare, in effect, that the head of the War 
Department was profoundly ignorant of military law and usage. 

Yet tlie Court, when it came to make up its finding on this 
specification, was constrained to declare that the facts stated 
therein could attach no criminality to the accused. 

The third specification was the gravest of all. It alleged a 
publication in the newspapers of a criticism upon the Secretary 
of War, and Mr. Lincoln referred to such publication as the 
real cause that moved him to prefer the charge, for he had 
already condoned the matter of the letter by returning it with 
the assurance that he would take no action thereon. 

To find the Chief Signal Officer not guilty upon this specifi- 
cation was to declare that the Secretary was without justifica- 
tion for having preferred the charge. 

Yet every essential averment of the specification had been 
disproved by the uncontradicted testimony. 

The Court accordingly found that General Hazen did not 
*' intentionally make a statement with a view to its publica- 
tion," or "cause the same to be published" ; and that he did 
not state that he " had written and sent to the Secretary of 
War such a letter as was described in the interrogation of the 
said reporter," and did not '^ state that his, the said Hazen's, 
recommendation had been entirely ignored." 

The specification, being thus disintegrated and all its crimi- 
nating averments expunged, as an actionable count, was dead. 

The Court, seeing this, immediately proceeded to blow the 
breath of life into its nostrils. It thereupon decided, of its own 
motion, in secret session, to substitute a word of its own in the 
place of two material words in the specification, and thus re- 
cords its self-moved action : *' Substituting, however, for the 
words 'entirely ignored' the word ' negatived,' and of the sub- 
stituted word * guilty.' " 



60 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

It does not require a profound study of military law to learn 
that the Court-Martial had no authority for such a procedure. 

This is a yery different power from the right to amend a 
specification. 

The judge-adTocate no doubt possesses this right, but it 
can only be exercised before the accused has pleaded to the 
specification (De Hart's " Military Law," page 102). The court 
can in no case amend a specification, and least of all can it 
substitute a term of its own for words alleged in the specifica- 
tion, and then find the accused guilty as to the substituted 
term, which, it is nowhere suggested in the evidence, he ever 
used, either in that or any other connection. 

The power to substitute one word carries with it the power 
to substitute any number, and thus to convict the accused upon 
a specification that he was never required to plead to. 

Practices less repugnant to the plain dictates of justice and 
common sense than those I have detailed led Sir William 
Blackstone to write of the system of military adrainisfcration, as 
illustrated by courts-martial in his day, in terms of severest re- 
proach. 

Says that learned author (Blackstone's "Commentaries," 
book i. chapter 13) : " Martial law which is built upon no 
settled principles, but is entirely arbitrary in its decisions, is, as 
Sir Matthew Hale observes, in truth and reality no law, but 
something indulged rather than allowed as law." 

The Mutiny Act, first enacted in the reign of William TIL, 
and since annually re-enacted with many successive amend- 
ments, has relieved the martial law of England of the above 
severe reproach. 

: That act relates to the discipline of the Army and prescribes 
the constitution and powers of courts-martial. It is the supreme 
military code, and, while the king claims and exercises the right 
to make Articles of War, any such article is to be held void if 
in conflict with the Mutiny Act, and the legality of Articles of 
War can be made the subject of examination in a court-martial. 



THE HAZEN" COUET-MAl^TIAL. 61 

(Grose, '^Military Antiquities" ; Adye, " Military Law " ; and 
Major-Gcneral C. J. Napier, "Remarks on Military Law.") 

It is to be lamented that many of the abuses derived from 
the ancient practice at the Horse Guards (War Office), and 
which have been corrected by the Mutiny Act in the British 
system, are still retained in our own. The Army of the United 
States is practically without a military code prescribing the 
powers and duties of courts-martial and the authority of the 
reviewing officer. Our courts-martial and reviewing authori- 
ties, constantly required to deal with grave questions affecting 
the honor and rights of officers of the Army, are remitted for 
their guidance to a few imperfect statutes, of which they know 
little, and to undefined usage, of which they know less. 

This is all the more intolerable in this country, where courts- 
martial are practically courts of last resort, than it would be in 
England, where appeals lie from their sentences to the supreme 
civil courts of law, as the Courts of King's Bench and Common 
Pleas. 

The evils of the existing system can only be remedied by 
the special enactments of a Military Code, that shall define and 
limit by positive law rights and powers that are now the sub- 
jects of arbitrary and fluctuating decisions by courts-martial 
and reviewing officers, who have become in effect a law unto 
themselves. 

Some of the most flagrant of those evils, leading to gross 
injustice to the accused, may be indicated by the following pro- 
posed reforms in the system from which they spring : 

First — The officer who prefers the charge, or who has in 
anywise conduced to the preferring of the same, shall in no 
case detail the members of the court-martial for the trial of the 
accused. 

Second — The President shall not have power to order a 
general court-martial to be convened, except when the General 
of the Army, or a general officer commanding a department or 
in command of an armv in the field, is the accuser. 



62 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

Third — Whenever an officer inferior in rank to the accused 
is detailed as a member of a court-martial, it must appear, by 
a certificate annexed to the order making the detail, that it 
could not be avoided without manifest injury to the service, 
such certificate to be signed by the officer who appointed the 
court. 

Fourth — The judge-advocate shall not be present at the 
secret deliberations of the court, during any stage of the trial, 
or when it retires to make up its findings and sentence. 

Eifth — The court-martial shall exhaust each specification by 
its findings, and shall find the accused either guilty or not 
guilty of the fact alleged therein, each specification to be passed 
upon as an entirety ; and the court shall have no power to find 
as to any separate part thereof, or in any manner to amend a 
specification, by substitution or otherwise, after the accused 
has pleaded to the same ; and if he is not proved guilty as 
charged he shall be acquitted. 

Sixth — No officer or enlisted man shall be adjudged guilty 
in any capital case, except all the members of the court-martial 
concur in the finding of guilty, and in every other case it shall 
require the concurrence of two-thirds of the members in order 
to convict. 

Seventh — When the findings and sentence of a court-mar- 
tial are duly recorded and signed by the president thereof, he 
shall announce the same in open court, in the presence of the 
accused, who may then, by himself or by counsel in his be- 
half, give notice of his exceptions to such findings and sen- 
tence, and shall be entitled to three days after the promulgation 
of sentence to file with the judge-advocate the grounds of such 
exceptions, and the same shall be transmitted with the record 
of the proceedings to the reviewing authority. 

Eighth — A court-martial shall not have power in any case 
to revise either its findings or sentence after the same shall have 
been promulgated or transmitted to the reviewing authority. 

Ninth — Should the accused voluntarily fail to appear for 
^sentence the proceedings shall be forwarded to the reviewing 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 63 

authority, and the findings and sentence shall be promulgated 
after the same have been approved or disapproved. 

Tenth — The reviewing authority shall certify in every case 
that he has carefully read the evidence before the court, and 
fully considered all exceptions filed in behalf of the accused. 

It may be suggested that the second proposal above is al- 
ready provided for in the seventy-second Article of War. 

But that article has been variously construed. 

Secretary of War Stanton, in the case of General Fitz-John 
Porter, gave it the construction which it is now proposed to fix 
by positive law ; while in the case of General Swaim it was held 
that the President may appoint a general court-martial who- 
ever may be the accuser or prosecutor, as it was formerly held 
by Attorney- General Devens in the case of Major Eunkle in 
1877 (15 Opinions Attorney-General, 291). 

It may be suggested further that the third proposal above 
is met by the seventy-ninth Article of War, which provides 
that "no officer shall, when it can be avoided, be tried by 
officers inferior to him in rank." It has been invariably held 
under this article that the mere fact that an officer inferior in 
rank to the accused is detailed as a member of the court fur- 
nishes a conclusive presumption that such detail could not be 
avoided (Martin vs, Mott, 12 Wheaton, 10). 

The object of the proposed change is to require that the facts 
which prove that it could not be avoided shall be made to appear. 

The fourth proposal is intended to prohibit the existing 
practice of the judge-advocate, who attends the court whenever 
it retires for deliberation, and may there address an argument 
to it as to questions already discussed at bar, and inform him- 
self, at every stage, of the views of respective members of the 
court, thus giving him an immense advantage over the accused 
and his counsel. 

It is manifest that the proper functions of a prosecuting 
officer are to be exercised at the bar of the court, and not in the 
council-chamber of its judges. 

Mr. Tytler, like writers generally on the law of courts-mar- 



64 THE HAZEN" COUET-MAETIAL. 

tial, commends this unfair practice. He, with equal impropriety, 
suggests that in all cases the judge-advocate should confer with 
the accused before trial, and thus make himself master of all 
points that will be urged for the defence, in order that he may 
prepare to meet them. That learned author, when he wrote his 
essay on military law, had not achieyed the eminence which 
made him one of the lords of the Sessions of Scotland, He had 
been, howeyer, a judge-advocate for eight years — an office that 
appears to sharpen the mind, as a grindstone sharpens a knife, 
by making it narrower. 

As to the tenth proposal, it may be objected to as super- 
fluous, inasmuch as it is manifestly the duty of the reviewing 
authority, as the law now stands, to read and consider all the 
proceedings of the court-martial before acting thereon. 

This duty at present, however, is only implied, and it goes 
without saying that it is rarely done. It certainly was not 
done in the case of General Hazen. The purpose is to make 
it mandatory, so that it shall no longer be '' more honored in 
the breach than in the observance." 

The average bureaucrat, whose mind, ''^ like the dyer's hand, 
is subdued to what it works in," will of course antagonize the 
proposed reformatory legislation ; but it is confidently believed 
that the military profession generally will perceive the need of 
reform in the law and practice of courts-martial, and will cor- 
dially welcome its judicious application. 

Note. — As illustrating the idiosyncrasy of the late Secre- 
tary of War, Mr. Eobert T. Lincoln, and his hostile temper to 
all who were associated with G-eneral Hazen in Arctic work, I 
state the following facts, which cannot be disputed : 

On the return of the relief expedition of 1884, bringing 
with it the six heroic survivors of the Lady Franklin Bay Ex- 
pedition, extensive preparations were made to receive them at 
Portsmouth, N. H., and also to do deserved honor to Comman- 
der Schley and the officers of the Navy who had with such 
skill, energy, and daring effected the timely rescue of Lieuten- 
ant Greely and his companions. 



THE HAZE]^ COURT-MARTIAL. 65 

Invitations were issued to many eminent persons, and the 
Governor of the State (Samuel W. Hale) took an active per- 
sonal interest in making the pageant worthy of the occasion. 

The Secretary of the Navy, Hon. William E. Chandler, 
who was always equal to, and observant of, every requirement 
of his high station, also actively promoted it, and bore a most 
conspicuous and honorable part in the ceremonies. 

Among the distinguished persons and high officials in the 
assemblage Secretary Lincoln was ^* conspicuous by his ab- 
sence, " 

As Lieutenant Grreely and his command were of the Army, 
it was expected, as a matter of course, that the Secretary- of 
War would be present to receive them. They had become 
honorably renowned for their brilliant achievements and unex- 
ampled endurance of suffering through their unfaltering execu- 
tion of orders issued from the War Department ; and whatever 
might have been the shortcomings of others, they were blame- 
less, for they had done their duty unto death. 

Mr. Lincoln responded to the invitation sent him with the 
following telegram, in which it will be seen that, with invidi- 
ous discrimination, he does not refer to Lieutenant Greely, the 
hero whom he was especially invited to honor. This omis- 
sion can only be explained on the theory of '' Odwius quern 
laesimtcs " — We hate the man whom we have injured : 

" War Department, Washington City, August 1, 1885. 
" I regret that I am not able to accept your invitation to join at Ports- 
mouth in the greeting to Commander Schley and his command upon their 
return. I beg you to express to him my appreciation of the energetic and 
thorough manner in which everything possible was accomplished by his ex- 
pedition, and to tender him the thanks of this Department for his inesti- 
mable services to the survivors of Lieutenant Greely's party. 

"Robert T. Lincoln." 

In striking contrast with this I cite the following from the 
brief but admirable address of Hon. Samuel J. Randall, whicli 
shows how the great American statesman caught the spirit of 
the occasion : 



66 THE HAZElSr COURT-MAETIAL. 

" Those who have perished in the Arctic wilds have died martyrs to 
duty; and if, as we all believe, knowledge is power, they have enriched 
their country by adding largely to the sum of human knowledge." So long 
as civilization shall last the names of these heroes and martyrs of the 
Greely expedition will be in men's mouths as household words. I am here 
by my presence to give proof how deeply I sympathize with every move- 
ment to honor these brave and long-suffering men." 

Secretary Lincoln, it should be stated, however, attended a 
few days later, on the earnest telegraphic request of General 
Hazen, at Governor's Island when the remains of those who 
had perished in the expedition were received at that point. 

A member of the Lady Franklin Bay Expedition when dead 
and coffined in a boiler-plate casket, securely riveted down, 
ceased to be obnoxious to Secretary Lincoln. 

But not so with the living. 

While scientific bodies throughout the world were doing 
honor to Lieutenant Greely a series of paragraphs depreciating 
his character and conduct as commander of the International 
Polar Expedition appeared in the Washington City newspapers. 
They contained statements and deductions that were grossly 
unwarranted by the facts and most unjust to that officer, which 
were generally copied in contemporary journals. 

General Hazen traced those statements to Colonel Chauncey 
McKeever, an Assistant Adjutant-General in the War Depart- 
ment, and then the immediate. Adjutant of the Secretary of 
War. He at once preferred charges against Colonel McKeever, 
and, although the proof of guilt was undeniable, the request of 
General Hazen that the offender should be placed on trial be- 
fore a court-martial for such flagrant breach of military disci- 
pline was refused. 

The object of those aspersions, generated in the atmosphere 
that enveloped the Secretary of War, was soon made apparent. 

A bill was pending in Congress to create the office of Assist- 
ant Chief Signal Officer of the Army with the rank of colonel, 
the purpose being, although not expressed in the bill, to confer 
that deserved position on Lieutenant Greely. 

Secretary Lincoln actively and openly opposed the measure, 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 67 

although unable to assign any valid reason for his hostility, and 
succeeded in preventing its passage at the last session of Con- 
gress. 

He, in like temper, prevented the promotion of Sergeant D. 
L. Brainard to a lieutenancy in the Army, although the fact 
is recognized by all who know that officer that by his high 
mental and moral qualities and his gentlemanly bearing he 
would reflect credit upon the service in a much higher grade 
than a second lieutenancy. 

It is earnestly hojped that these acts of public justice, which 
would almost universally meet with the approving sanction of 
the people, will not be much longer delayed. 

As Sergeant Brainard was subjected to the smirching pro- 
cess by Secretary Lincoln and Colonel Chauncey McKeever by 
unwarrantable published aspersions, in which that excellent 
non-commissioned officer was represented as *^ making a lay 
figure of himself" and *' exhibiting his person for hire in a 
low dime museum at Cleveland," I deem it proper to present 
the following facts : 

Soon after his return from the Arctic, Sergeant Brainard, 
while on leave, accepted a lucrative offer to lecture at the 
Cleveland, Ohio, Museum. While so engaged in an honorable 
effort to add to his limited income for the support of his family, 
he was ordered by the Secretary of War to cancel his engage- 
ment and return instantly to his station. Upon learning of 
the above imputation upon Sergeant Brainard the Hon. Amos 
Townsend and other eminent citizens of Cleveland wrote Gene- 
ral Hazen, protesting against it as utterly false, and stating that 
the museum in which Sergeant Brainard lectured was a highly 
respectable lyceum, and that his lectures were most instructive, 
and were attended by the best people, ladies and gentlemen, of 

that beautiful city. '^ 

T. J. MACKEY, 

Late Counsel for General Hazen. 

WASHisrGTOK, D. C, May 12, 1885. 



LETTER 

OF 

GEN. W. B. HAZEN TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR 

WHICH LED TO THIS TRIAL, 



SiGis-AL Oefice, Wae Depaetmei^-t, 

Washiingto]^ City, February 17, 1885. 

HoK. Egbert T. LiKCOLi^, Secretary of War : 

Sir : The Secretary of War, in his annual report for the 
year 1884, was pleased to make me the subject of severe stric- 
tures because, in my official report of the final disaster to the 
International Polar Expedition, I expressed the conviction that 
such disaster would have been averted had a ship of rescu-e been 
despatched from St. John's, N. F., after the return of Lieuten- 
ant Garlington to that port, or as late as September 15, 1883, as 
urged by me but not adopted by the Secretary of War. 

As my silence in view of those strictures might be construed 
as implying my assent to their justice, I beg leave to place on 
record the evidence that supports the correctness of my judg- 
ment in the premises. 

I respectfully submit that this evidence embraces the only 
expert testimony that has been adduced upon the vital question 
whether a steam-sealer of the first class, such as the Bear or 
Nephine, starting from St. John's, N. F., as late as September 
15, could have made the passage of Melville Bay and reached 
Cape Sabine or Life-Boat Cove, or its vicinity, in the autumn of 
1883, and rescued Lieutenant Greely and his party. 

This testimony consists of statements of Captain Eichard 
Pike, late commander of the steam-sealer Proteus, the vessel 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. b\) 

that conveyed Lieutenant Greely and his party to Lady Frank- 
lin Bay, and other ice-navigators of St. John's, N. F., whose 
experience in the waters on the coast of Greenland extends over 
periods ranging from five to thirty-five years. 

These statements were transmitted to me on December 22, 
1884, by Thomas N. Molloy, Esq., United States Consul at St. 
John's, whose name has been honorably associated with more 
than one Arctic expedition sailing from that port, and espe- 
cially with the Polaris relief expedition of 1873, for which he 
received the thanks of the State Department. 

2d. Letter from Chief -Engineer Melville, U. S. N., an officer 
who stands among the foremost authorities in all matters relat- 
ing to Arctic navigation, dated December 5, 1884. 

3d. Letter from Lieutenant A. W. Greely, late commander of 
the Lady Franklin Bay Expedition, dated December 10, 1884. 

4th. Letter from Sergeant D. L. Brainard, who v^as in com- 
mand of the survivors of the Lady Franklin Bay Expedition, by 
assignment of Lieutenant Greely, when rescued on June 22, 
1884, dated December 9, 1884. 

I respectfully invite the attention of the Secretary of War to 
the following extracts from this testimony. 

Captain Eichard Pike states, December 18, 1884 : 

*' I have been engaged seal-hunting in the northern ice-fields for the 
past thirty-five years. . . . From my knowledge of the Arctic regions, and 
navigation amongst heavy northern ice-fields, I did expect a vessel would 
have been dispatched from St. John's immediately on arrival of Yantic 
steamship there, for the purpose of continuing the effort to succor Lieuten- 
ant Greely and his companions, and I volunteered to Lieutenant Garlington 
to take charge. I most unhesitatingly affirm, if a steamer snch as the steam- 
ship Bear or Neptune had been fitted out and dispatched up to even Septem- 
ber 20, Cape Sabine would have been reached without any trouble, and this 
I expressed to Consul Molloy. . . . Had a steamer got to Littleton Island 
even, of which, humanly speaking, there would have been a certainty, such 
men as our seal-hunters would, in any season, either with drift or frozen 
ice to overcome, have been able to cross over to Cape Sabine." 

Captain Samuel Walsh, of St. John's, N. F., states under 
same date : 

" I haye been engaged in the seal and whale fishery, the former for 
many years, and have commanded some of the best steamers engaged in 



70 THE HAZElSr COUET-MAETIAL. 

these perilous ventures amongst the heavy northern ice-fields. In the sum- 
mer of 1883 I occupied the position of pilot to steamship Yaniic, which ac- 
companied the steamship Proteus as relief ship to the Greely expedition. 

*' On my return to St. John's I am positively certain, had a suitable 
vessel, such as the steamship Bear, been fitted out (without loss of time), 
she would have reached Cape Sabine, or in that neighborhood, before navi- 
gation had closed up to that point, and I should have unhesitatingly and 
gladly volunteered my service as pilot. . . . There were three or four vessels 
available for the work, which could have been dispatched within forty-eight 
hours after arrival of steamship Yantic, and, the idea of it being abroad 
amongst seamen acquainted with ice-navigation, several men applied to be 
engaged." 

William Carlson states under same date : 

" I have been engaged at the Newfoundland seal-fishery for thirteen 
years, and have seen all the roughs and smooths in the navigation of heavy 
northern ice during that time. . . . Even after the Yantic' s return to St. 
John's, had a vessel such as the Bear or Neptune been fitted out, there is 
not the shadow of a doubt in my mind but the vessel would have succeeded 
in reaching Cape Sabine or the neighborhood. 

*' A crew could have been got in St. John's of first-class men to have 
manned the ship, either to return or stay over the winter, and there are 
many good harbors on the west coast of Greenland where a vessel could 
have wintered, and in May month no doubt the vessel would have been re- 
leased. 

*' There is no doubt it was a fatal mistake not to send a vessel down 
after arrival of Yantic.^'* 

Peter McPherson states, December 20, 1884 : 

** I have been for ten years acting in the capacity of engineer on seal- 
ing steamers, and have a large experience in the management of steamers 
amongst the ice-fields of the frozen north. 

" I had charge of the engine department of steamship Proteus when 
that vessel landed the Greely party at Discovery Harbor in 1881. . . . 

"From the knowledge so acquired I feel confident there would have 
been no difiiculty in such vessels as steamships Bear, Eagle, Falcon, or 
Ranger reaching Cape Sabine or neighborhood last fall, had any one of 
them been dispatched within two or three days after arrival of steamship 
Yantic in St. John's ; and the vessels just named were coaled and ready for 
immediate employment. . . . Even supposing the relief ship only reached 
Pandora Harbor, which to my mind was a certainty, a crew of Newfound- 
land sealers would, during the fall or winter, have communicated with Cape 
Sabine ; for these men are in their element either in boats amongst drift-ice 
or on frozen ice or snow." 



THE HAZEN COUKT-MARTIAL. 71 

Thomas White, of St. John's, N. F., states December 20, 
1884: 

" I have been engaged from boyhood in the general seafaring business 
of the colony — viz., seal-hunting, fishing, and foreign-going — and have occu- 
pied positions of responsibility in the seal-hunting line. I have been a mas- 
ter of watch with Captain Pike, of Newfoundland, and Captain Fairwea- 
ther, of Dundee, both of whom are famous for their knowledge of navigation 
amongst the northern ice-fields, as well as for the work done by them in the 
Arctic seas. 

" In the year 1881 I was selected by Captain Richard Pike to fill the 
position of second officer in the steamship Proteus^ and the success of that 
expedition in landing Lieutenant Greely at Lady Franklin Bay, and the 
speedy return of the ship to St. John's, has passed into history. . . . When 
the steamship Yantic arrived back with the Proteus' shipwrecked crew I 
was so fully impressed with the belief that a steamer, fitted out immediately 
and dispatched to Cape Sabine, would have reached that point before the 
northern waters got frozen iip that I expressed the opinion that the authori- 
ties had missed the chance of rescuing the explorers. ... 

" It was a fatal mistake not to dispatch a steamer on arrival of Yantic, 
as all who have a knowledge here of Arctic navigation expressed the same 
opinion." 

Chief-Engineer Melville says : 

"I am of the opinion that a good sealer or steam-vessel, not too large, 
of average strength and a speed of seven or eight knots an hour, leav- 
ing St. John's September 15, could have gone, and can go every year, as 
far north as Cape Sabine or Littleton Island, near the mouth of Smith 
Sound. . . ." 

Lieutenant Greely states : 

" I concur fully and entirely in the views and opinions of Engineer 
Melville, save on certain immaterial points. ..." 

Sergeant Brainard states : 

*'The practicability of a well-equipped steam-sealer reaching Cape 
Isabella, and thus rendering efficient aid to our forlorn party, was never for 
a moment doubted by those most capable of judging the danger and diffi- 
culties which attend ice-navigation at that season of the year. 

" Our opinion in this matter was confirmed by the observations of 
Sergeants Rice and Frederick during the early days of November. 

" Standing near the summit of Cape Isabella, they had an uninter- 
rupted view for many miles to the southward, and within the range of their 
vision not a piece of ice capable of offering the slightest obstruction to a 



72 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

vessel appeared. The waves rolling in from Melville Bay, and dashing 
against the cliffs at their feet, gave ample evidence of the scarcity of ice 
in the North Water, and the feasibility of its successful navigation. The 
plan proposed, to land a relief party on the Greenland coast at or near 
Cape York, with the intention of affording succor to our expedition, in the 
early spring of 1884, would, without doubt, have been successful under the 
energetic and experienced officer — Chief-Engineer Melville — who suggested 
it. There were many days during the month of May when the channel 
between Cape Sabine and the (xreenland coast was so nearly cleared of ice 
that small boats from the opposite coast could have reached us in safety. 
It was a matter that was under almost daily discussion in our miserable hut 
at Camp Clay, even when death's shadows were hovering darkly above us, 
and I now reiterate what I had said then : ' The plan of relief from that source 
is practicable, and, if undertaken, it will be the means of averting a disaster 
which now appears imminent.' In the views of Chief -Engineer Melville 
relative to this plan I heartily concur in every particular." 

Dr. Emil Bessels, the scientist of tlie Polaris expedition, 
who had also an extended experience in the polar zone under the 
auspices of Petermann, the celebrated Arctic explorer, testified 
before the board of officers who planned the Schley relief ex- 
pedition, of which board I was president, that a vessel can 
secure a safe transit south leaving Littleton Island as late as 
October 15. 

The Juniata, a vessel far inferior to the average steam- 
sealer in her capacity for Arctic navigation, started from 
St. John's, N. F., to renew her search for the missing crew of 
the Polaris, on the 18th of September, 1873, by order of the 
Secretary of the Navy, and she was steaming northward to 
make the passage of Melville Bay when she was overtaken by a 
steamer chartered by Consul Molloy with the announcement 
that the Polaris party had been rescued. 

I have yet to learn of a single Arctic authority that nega- 
tives the testimony above cited. 

In view of that testimony I respectfully submit that I am 
justified in the conclusion that the tragic termination of the 
Internationa] Polar Expedition was finally due to the decision 
not to dispatch a steam-sealer to effect its rescue on the 15th of 
September, 1883, which I did all in my power to have done ; 
such sealer, starting from St. John's, N. P., only thirteen days' 
steaming from Cape Sabine, in all human probability could 



THE HAZETS" COURT-MAETIAL. 73 

have readied and rescued the party before there was any inter- 
ruiDtion to navigation by ice, and would have resulted in a sav- 
ing to the United States, as it terminated, of a half-million of 
money. 

In view of the conduct of Commander Wildes and Lieuten- 
ant G-arlington, I would not consider their opinions upon the 
subject of further service that year in the Arctic of any possi- 
ble value, but, on the contrary, to be misleading ; while Captain 
Tyson's long experience on an Arctic ice-floe in winter in the 
Arctic regions, under the most distressing circumstances, in- 
validated his opinions upon the subject also. 

The Secretary of War, it appears, reached his conclusion 
after liaving personally consulted Captain Greer, U. S. N., 
who went to Littleton Island in 1873, in command of the Ti- 
gress, in search of the wrecked Polaris party, and Dr. Emil 
Bessels, the scientist of the Polaris expedition, and some others. 

It is presumed that Dr. Bessel's view was the same as that 
which he expressed four months later, under oath, as above 
cited, and which fully sustained my own judgment as to the 
feasibility of navigating Melville Bay in the month of October. 
Captain Greer was not in any sense an authority on Arctic navi- 
gation, as his experience has been limited to a single summer 
cruise made ten years before in these waters, while Chief-En- 
gineer Melville, wlio was among the highest Arctic authorities, 
earnestly urged the sending of a ship of rescue from St. John's 
in September, 1883. Captain Greer and Commander Schley, 
whose opinions the Secretary cites as confirmatory of the op- 
posite theory, are simply in error, neither being experts in 
Arctic navigation. Nor is it easily understood how Commander 
Schley could have been so misled about the character of the 
winter and temperature at Upernavik in 1883-4. 

I enclose copy of his statement as published in the report of 
the Honorable Secretary of War for 1884, together with a copy 
of the oflScial record of temperature at Upernavik from October, 
1883, to March, 1884, both inclusive, which show how much 
in error he was on this point. The weather there during that 
winter did not differ materially from what it is now and has 
been for the past thirty days in Manitoba and northern Dakota. 



74 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

A single telegram to United States Consul Molloy at St. 
John's wonld have elicited information from professional ice- 
nayigators, showing conclusively that it was then feasible to 
reach Littleton Island with a steam-sealer, and thus have avert- 
ed the impending disaster. 

While the action of the Secretary of War in the premises 
was dictated by his sincere convictions of public duty, I believe 
it can be established beyond question that such action made 
certain that final disaster to Lieutenant Greely's Arctic party 
which the violation of their orders by Lieutenant Garlington 
and Commander Wildes had rendered highly probable. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
(Signed) W. B. Hazek, 
Brig, and Bvt, Maj.-Ge?2., Chief Signal Officer, U. S. A. 
(12 enclosures.) 



X 



LETTER FROM GENERAL HAZEN TO THE SECRE- 
TARY OF WAR, REQUESTING THAT HIS (HA- 
ZEN'S) TRIAL SHOULD PROCEED AS ORDERED. 

Washikgtoi^, D. C, 1601 *'K" Street, 
March 7, 1885. 

To the Honoralle the Secretary of War : 

Sir : Referring to the charges recently preferred against me 
by ex-Secretary Lincoln, I respectfully request that nothing be 
permitted to interfere to prevent trial as ordered. 

The action of friends in their zeal to serve, in doing what 
they believe a kindness, may sometimes, and especially in this 
case, have a contrary effect. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

W. B. IlAZEJT, 

Brig, and Bvt. Maj.-Gen., Chief Signal Officer, 
[A true copy.] 

B. M. PURSELL, 

Second Lieut. Signal Corps, U. S. A. 



Proceedings of a General Court-Martial 

Conmned at the Ehhitt House^ in the City of Washing- 
ton^ D. (7., on the eleventh day of March^ eighteen 
hundred and eighty-five^ hy virtue of the following 
order : 

[Special Oeders, No. 50.] 

Headquarters of the Army, 
Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, March 3, 1885. 

Extract. 



22. The following order has been received from the War De- 
partment ; 

War Department, Washington, 
March 3, 1885. 
By direction of the President a General Court-Martial is ap- 
pointed to meet in this city at 11 o'clock a.m., on Wednesday, 
the 11th day of March, 1885, or as soon thereafter as practica- 
ble, for the trial of such persons as may be brought before it. 

Detail for the Court. 

Major-General Winfield S. Hancock. 

Major-General John M. Schofield. 

Brigadier-General Oliyer 0. Howard. 

Brigadier-General Alfked H. Terry. 

Brigadier-General Christopher C. Augur. 

Brigadier-General Egbert Macfeely, Commissary-General 
of Subsistence. 

Brigadier-General William B. Rochester, Paymaster-Gene- 
ral. 

75 



76 THE HAZEN- COUET-MAETIAL. 

Brigadier-General Samuel B. Holabird, Quartermaster- 
General. 

Brigadier-General Egbert Murray, Surgeon-General. 

Brigadier- General John Newton, Chief of Engineers.^ 

Colonel George L. Andrews, Twenty-fifth Infantry. 

Colonel Wesley Merritt, Fifth Cavalry. 

Colonel Henry M. Black, Twenty-third Infantry. 

Captain John W. Clous, Twenty-fourth Infantry, Judge- 
Advocate. 

The Court is empowered to proceed with the business before 
it with any number of members present not less than the mini- 
mum prescribed by law. 

Upon the final adjournment of the Court the members will 
return to their proper stations. 

Egbert T. Lincoln, 

Secretary of War, 

The journeys required of the members of the Court in com- 
plying with this order are necessary for the public service. 

By command of Lieutenant- General Sheridan : 

E. C. Drum, 

A djutant- General, 
Official : 

Assistant Adjutant- General, 



EOOMS OF THE GENERAL COURT-MaRTIAL, 

Ebbitt House, Washington, D. C, 

Wednesday, March 11, 1885, 11 A.M. 

The Court met pursuant to the foregoing order. 
Present : 

1. Major-General Winfield S. Hancock, U. S. A. 

2. Major-General John M. Schofield, TJ. S. A. 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAKTIAL. 77 

3. Brigadier- General Oliver 0. Howard, U. S. A. 

4. Brigadier-General Alfred II. Terry, U. S. A. 

5. Brigadier-General Christopher 0. Augur, U. S. A. 

6. Brigadier- General Egbert Macfeely, Commissary-Gene- 
ral of Subsistence. 

7. Brigadier-General William B. Rochester, Paymaster- 
General. 

8. Brigadier-General Samuel B. Holabird, Quartermaster- 
General. 

9. Brigadier-General Robert Murray, Surgeon-General. 

10. Brigadier- General JoHI^^ Newtok, Chief of Engineers. 

11. Colonel George L. Andrews, Twenty-fifth Infantry. 

12. Colonel Wesley Merritt, Fifth Cavalry. 

13. Colonel Henry M. Black, Twenty-third Infantry ; and 
Captain John W. Clous, Twenty-fourth Infantry, Judge- 
Advocate of the Court. 

Brigadier-General AYilliam B. Hazen, the accused, and his 
counsel, T. J. Mackey, Esq. 

The Court then proceeded to the trial of Brigadier- General 
William B. Hazen, Chief Signal Officer, United States Army, 
who thereupon came before the Court, and, having heard the 
foregoing orders convening the Court read, was asked if he had 
any objection to any member present named in the detail as 
above, to which he replied as follows : 

Gen. Hazen — I have ; I object to Brigadier- General Robert 
Macfeely, Commissary-General, on grounds which will be stated 
by my counsel. 

The Judge-Adyocate — As I presume the accused would 
like to be assisted, in the matter of challenge, by his counsel, I 
ask permission of the Court that they be now introduced. 

The accused then, with the permission of the Court, intro- 
duced as his counsel Judge T. J. Mackey. 

Mr. Mackey then addressed the Court as follows : 

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Court : I beg leave 
to submit to the consideration of the Court, on behalf of 
Brigadier- General William B. Hazen, Chief Signal Officer of the 
Army, the following : 



78 THE HAZEJST COUET-MAETIAL. 

CHALLEJTGE. 

Washii^gtoi^, D. C, March 11, 1885. 

Brigadier- General William B. Hazen, Chief Signal Officer, 
United States Army, being charged with ^' conduct to the pre- 
judice of good order and military discipline, in violation of the 
sixty-second Article of War/' comes before the General Court- 
Martial conyened in the city of Washington, D. 0., on this 11th 
day of March, 1885, pending his trial on said charge, and chal- 
lenges Brigadier-General Kobert Macfeely, Commissary-General 
of Subsistence, a member of said Court, and for cause of chal- 
lenge shows as follows : 

1. That in the year 1876, and for many years prior thereto, 
the said Brigadier-General William B. Hazen was engaged in an 
actiye effort to relieve the enlisted men of the Army from the 
pernicious system of post-traderships, under which they were 
charged extortionate prices for every article purchased by them 
from such traders ; and to that end he reported to the Secre- 
.tary of War that the Subsistence Department had failed and 
neglected to comply with the Act of Congress approved July 
28, 1866, which requires that the officers of the Subsistence De- 
partment shall procure and keep for sale to officers and enlisted 
men, at cost prices, such articles as may be designated by the 
Inspectors-General of the Army. 

2. That, the War Department failing to remedy the evil com- 
plained of, the said Brigadier-General Hazen, then Colonel of 
the Sixth Infantry, addressed a letter, of date June 4, 1876, to 
the Attorney- General, with the view to have the said act duly 
enforced. 

3. That the said letter was subsequently forwarded to the 
General of the Army, who transmitted it to the said Brigadier- 
General Kobert Macfeely, Commissary-General of Subsistence, 
who made an endorsement thereon, assailing the said Brigadier- 
General Hazen in terms of gross insult ; accused him of having 
committed a breach of discipline by writing the same, and 
denied that the Subsistence Department had failed to comply 
with the said act. 

4. That in consequence of the facts above recited the rela- 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAKTIAL. 79 

tions between the said Brigadier-General Eobert Macfeely and 
Brigadier-General William B. Hazen have been ever since un- 
friendly, and such as usually pertain between those who are 
avowed enemies. 

Wherefore it is respectfully submitted that the said Briga- 
dier-General Robert Macfeely ought not, in fairness and good 
conscience, to sit as a member of this honorable Court, as, in 
view of his known hostility to the said Brigadier-General Hazen, 
he might unconsciously fail to weigh impartially the evidence 
for the defence. 

W. B. Hazen, 
Brig, and Bvt. Maj.-Gen., Chief, Signal Officer ^ U, 8. A, 

T. J. Mackey, 

Cotmsel for Gen. Hazen. 

The Peesidekt (addressing General Macfeely) — Do you de- 
sire to make any statement to the Court in connection with the 
matter which has been referred to by the counsel for the ac- 
cused ? 

General Macfeely — I merely wish to state to the Court, in 
reply to the challenge of the accused, that it became my duty 
some nine years ago to call the attention of the Secretary of 
War, my superior officer, to a certain communication which 
appeared in public print over the signature of Colonel Hazen, 
which statement I characterized at that time as untrue and not 
in accordance with the facts ; and I have seen no reason to 
change my opinion then formed in regard to those statements 
since. By reason of this opinion then formed I choose to have 
no personal or social relations with General Hazen since. I 
believe I have no hostile or unfriendly feelings towards the 
accused, and no prejudice, and that I could act impartially. and 
in accordance with the oath as a member of this Court on his 
trial ; but while the Court and the accused, probably not know- 
ing or understanding clearly the feelings which actuate me in 
this matter, may differ with me in opinion, I do not object to 
being excused as a member of this Court. 

The Court was then cleared for deliberation. When the 
doors were reopened, and the accused and his counsel had re- 
• 



80 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

sumed their seats, the Judge- Advocate announced the decision 
of the Court on the matter of the challenge of General Macfeely 
as follows : 

The Judge- Advocate — I am directed by the Court to an- 
nounce that the challenge by the accused is sustained, and that 
Brigadier-General Macfeely is excused from sitting as a member 
of the Court in the trial of this action. (To General Hazen :) 
Have you any objection to any other member of the Court 
present named in the detail ? 

Mr. Mackey — Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, 
I am instructed by the accused to state that he waives his right 
to any further challenge. 

The Peesideis^t — I believe it is in order now to swear the 
Court. 

The members of the Court were then severally duly sworn 
by the Judge-Advocate, and the Judge-Advocate was duly 
sworn by the President of the Court, all of which oaths were 
administered in the presence of Brigadier-General William B. 
Hazen, the accused. 

The Judge- Advocate — Under the authority given, I have 
appointed Mr. James L. Andem as reporter of the Court. 

The reporter was then duly sworn by the Judge- Advocate, 
in the presence of the Court, faithfully to perform his duty as 
such reporter. 

The accused was then duly arraigned upon the following 
charge and specifications : 

chaege. 

Conduct to the prejudice of good order and military disci- 
pline, in violation of the sixty- second Article of War. 

Specification 1st — " In that Brigadier-General William B. Ha- 
zen, Chief Signal Officer, United States Army, knowing that 
the Secretary of War had, in the performance of his official 
duty, decided, in the month of September, a.d. 1883, 
that ifc was not practicable to send in the year 1883 an 
expedition to the Arctic regions for the relief of Lieutenant 
A. W. Greely, an officer of the Army, and his party then 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 81 

in those regions, did, in his official annual report as Chief 
Signal Officer bearing date October 15, 1884, criticise the 
said official action of the Secretary of War and impugn the 
propriety thereof, by saying of and concerning the send- 
ing of a relief expedition to the Arctic regions for the relief 
of Lieutenant A. W. Greely and his party in the year 1883 
as follows : 

*' *0n the return of the escort ship bringing the relief party to St. 
John's, September 13, there was still time, as known from previous 
experience and sliown by subsequent facts, to send effective relief.' 

This at Washington, D. C" 

Specificatioji 2d — " In that Brigadier-General William B. Ha- 
zen, Chief Signal Officer, United States Army, knowing that 
the Secretary of War had, in the performance of his official 
duty, decided in the month of September, a.d. 1883, that 
it was not practicable to send in the year 1883 an expedition 
to the Arctic regions for the relief of Lieutenant A. W. 
Greely, an officer of the Army, and his party then in those 
regions, did, without having been requested or authorized 
by the Secretary of W^ar so to do, address and send to the 
Secretary of War a communication written by him, the said 
Chief Signal Officer, bearing date the 17th day of February, 
1885, concerning the said official action of the Secretary of 
War, containing, among other statements, the following : 

" 'I respectfully submit that I am justified in the conclusion that the 
tragic termination of the International Polar Expedition was finally 
due to the decision not to dispatch a steam-sealer to effect its rescue on 
the loth of September, 1883, which I did all in my power to have 
done; such sealer, starting from St. John's, N. F., only thirteen days' 
steaming from Cape Sabine, in all human probability could have 
reached and rescued the party before there was any interruption to 
navigation by ice. . . .' 

This at Washington, D. C." 

Specification 3d — '' In that Brigadier- General William B. Ha- 
zen, Chief Signal Officer, United States Army, knowing that 
the Secretary of War had, in the performance of his official 



82 THE HAZEN COTJET-MAETIAL* 

duty, decided, in the month of September, a.d. 1883, that 
it was not practicable to send in the year 1883 an expedi- 
tion to the Arctic regions for the relief of Lieutenant 
Greely, an officer of the Army, and his party then in those 
regions, and having written and sent to the Secretary of 
War an official communication, bearing date the 17th day 
of February, a.d. 1885, containing, among other things, 
the following language : 

" ' The Secretary of War, in his animal report for the year 1884, was 
pleased to make me the subject of severe strictures because, in my 
official report of the final disaster to the International Polar Expedi- 
tion, I expressed the conviction that such disaster would have been 
averted had a ship of rescue been dispatched from St. John's, N. F., 
after the return of Lieutenant Garlington to that port, or as late as 
September 15, 1883, as urged by me, but not adopted by the Secretary 
of War. 

" ' As my silence, in view of those strictures, might be construed as 
implying my assent to their justice, I beg leave to place on record 
the evidence that supports the correctness of my judgment in the 
premises. . . . 

*' 'I respectfully submit that I am justified in the conclusion that the 
tragic termination of the International Polar Expedition was finally 
due to the decision not to dispatch a steam-sealer to effect its rescue 
on the 15th of September, 1883, which I did all in my power to have 
done ; such sealer, starting from St. John's, N. F., only thirteen days' 
steaming from Cape Sabine, in all human probability could have 
reached and rescued the party before there was any interruption to 
navigation by ice. ..." 

and said communication having been returned by the Secre- 
tary of War to said Chief Signal Officer with an endorse- 
ment thereon, in words and figures as follows : 

"War Department, February 27, 1885. 

" * The within paper, bearing date of February 17th inst. , was received 
at the War Department February 26, and is respectfully returned to 
the Chief Signal Officer. 

*' ' The correctness of the judgment of the Chief Signal Officer in the 
expression made by him in his last annual report of his views as to the 
propriety of the action of the Secretary of War in not sending a ship 
in September, 1883, to the Arctic regions, is not a proper subject of 
discussion between the Chief Signal Officer and the Secretary of War. 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 83 

The strictures made by the Secretary of War in his annual report, and 
now referred to by the Chief Signal Officer, were addressed to the ex- 
traordinary conduct of the Chief Signal Officer as a military officer in 
publicly controverting the propriety of previous official action of his 
official superior, the Secretary of War, and that, too, in a matter in 
which the Chief Signal Officer had no official responsibility. 

*' * It was at that time thought unnecessary to take any official action 
upon the violation of military propriety beyond observing that it had 
been committed. The present official expression of opinion to the 
effect that the failure of the Secretary of War to organize in two days 
and dispatch to the Arctic regions a new expedition, at a season which 
made it certain that it must, under the best circumstances, encounter 
all the rigors of an Arctic winter, was a neglect of duty, is therefore 
returned with the remark that a breach of military discipline which 
could not be overlooked may be avoided by the retention by the Chief 
Signal Officer of the within paper in his own hands. 

** Robert T. Lincoln, 

*' ' Secretary of Wcur.^ 

he, tlie said Brigadier-General William B. Hazen, Chief 
Signal OflScer, United States Army, did, in response to an 
iDquiry made by a newspaper reporter, as to whether he, 
the said Hazen, had written a letter to the Secretary of 
War throwing the blame of the loss of the Greely party 
upon his shoulders, intentionally make a statement, in an- 
swer to said newspaper reporter, with a view to its publica- 
tion, and did cause the same to be published, on the 2d day 
of March, 1885, in a newspaper printed and published in 
the city of Washington, D. C, called the Evening Star, 
which statement was in substance as follows : That he, the 
said Hazen, had written and sent to the Secretary of War 
such a letter as was described in the interrogation of the 
said reporter, containing a criticism and imputation of 
blame upon the Secretary of War for his official action in 
not complying with the recommendation of the Chief Sig- 
nal Officer to send, in the month of September, 1883, an 
expedition for the relief of Lieutenant A. W. Greely and 
his party, immediately after the return of the party which 
brought the news of the loss of the steamer Proteus in the 
said month of September, and did further state that his, 
the said Hazen^s, said recommendation had been entirely 



84 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

ignored. This at Washington, D. C, on or about March 2, 
1885." 

RoBEKT T. Lincoln", 

Secretary of War, 
Maech 3, 1885. 



[Endorsed.] 

War Department, Washington, 
March 3, 1885. 

By direction of the President the within charge and specifi- 
cations are hereby referred for trial (through the Adjutant- 
General) to the General Oourt-Martial appointed by special orders 
of the War Department of this date, to assemble in this city on 
the 11th instant, of which Major- General W. 8. Hancock is 
president. 

The Adjutant- General will cause a copy of the charge and 
specifications to be furnished to the accused. 

Egbert T. Lincoln, 

Secretary of War, 

The Judge- Advocate — Before pleading to the specifications 
and the charge the accused desires to make a motion to strike 
out certain of the specifications. 

Mr. Mackey — Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, I 
beg leave to submit, in behalf of the accused, Brigadier- General 
William B. Hazen, a motion to strike out the first and second 
specifications, and will present the argument to the Court as to 
each specification in its proper order. 

The charge against the accused is *^ conduct to the preju- 
dice of good order and military discipline, in violation of the 
sixty-second Article of War." I submit the following : 

motion. 

Before a General Court- Martial, appointed by direction of the 
President, to meet in the city of Washington, D. C, on the 11th 
day of March, 1885, or as soon thereafter as practicable, comes 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 85 

the said Brigadier- General William B. Hazen, Chief Signal Offi- 
cer of the United States Army, and moves this honorable Court 
that the first and second specifications set forth in support of 
said charge be stricken out, the same being irreleyant to the 
charge and insufficient in point of law. 

T. J. Mackey, 
Counsel for General Hazen, 

After argument heard this motion was denied . 

ARRAIGKMEN'T. 

The accused was then arraigned on tiie charge and specifica- 
tions preferred, to which he pleaded as follows : 
To the first specification, not guilty. 
To the second specification, not guilty. 
To the third specification, not guilty. 
To the charge, not guilty. 



SECOND DAY. 



Rooms of the Gekeeal Court-Maetial, 

Ebbitt House, WASHiKGTOi^, D. C, 

Thursday, March 12, 1885, 11 a.m. 

Judge- Advocate — The paper I referred to is as follows : 

ADMISSIOl^S OF FACT. 

The accused, Brigadier-General William B. Hazen, Chief 
Signal Officer of the Army, having pleaded not guilty to the 
specifications and to the charge herein, now comes before this 
honorable Court, and, fully affirming said plea, makes the fol- 
lowing admissions of fact : 

First — He admits that in his annual report, bearing date 
October 15, 1884, he used the language set out in the conclud- 
ing portion of the first specification to said charge ; but as such 
language only forms about one-half of the sentence which tlie 
specification purports to give entire, he craves reference to the 
said report in full. 

Second — He admits that, without having been requested 
or specially authorized by the Secretary of War so to do, he did 
address to the Secretary of War a communication bearing date 
February 17, 1885, containing the language set forth in the 
second specification, but not in the form therein set forth ; for 
the specification purports to give the sentence in full, while it 
omits five words at the beginning and twenty words at the 
close of the sentence from which it is taken. He, therefore, 
craves reference to the full text of said letter. 

He admits the venue, as laid at Washington, D. C, in said 
specifications. 

The Judge- Advocate — Mr. President, I now desire to in- 
troduce in evidence the annual report of the Chief Signal Offi- 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 87 

cer of the Army to the Secretary of War for the year 1884. 
The document submitted to the Court is admitted, for the pur- 
poses of this cause, to be the report spoken of by the accused, 
as I understand it. 

The Pkesident — Admit it. 

The Judge- Advocate — With the permission of the Court I 
will read from tliat report (the entire report will be in evidence) 
the portion of the specification, or rather the extract referred to 
in the first specification, which is found on page 19, and is as 
follows : 

**0n the return of the escort ship bringing the relief party to St. 
John's, September 13, there was still time, as known from previous experi- 
ence and shown by subsequent facts, to send effective relief, and my six 
telegrams from Washington Territory, where I then happened to be, at- 
test the earnestness of my efforts to have this done." 

It only includes so much of the report as I have read. Of 
course the entire report is in evidence. 

The President — Where does it end — at what word ? 

The Judge- Advocate — At the word '' done "; at the period. 
This report which I have submitted will be appended to the re- 
cord and marked Exhibit A. 

I now ask the accused to produce the letter of February 17, 
1885, referred to in the second and third specifications in this 
case. 

The accused produced the letter called for. 

The Judge-Advocate — The specifications Nos. 2 and 3 
plainly show that only extracts from this letter are quoted in 
those specifications. I presume it will be proper for me to read 
the entire letter ; and if there is no objection I will proceed to 
read the letter. 

The Presideis'T — There seems to be no objection. 

Mr. Mackey (to the Judge- Advocate) —You introduce the 
entire letter, I understand ? 

The Judge-Advocate — Yes, I will read it. 

The Judge- Advocate then read the letter referred to, dated 
February 17, 1885, together with the endorsement thereon, 
which is appended to the record and marked Exhibit B. 



88 THE HAZEI^ COURT-MARTIAL. 

The Judge- Advocate (to the accused) — I suppose you ad- 
mit the endorsement ? 

General Hazei^^ — Yes. 

The Judge-Advocate — Now, Mr. President, for the pur- 
poses of this trial I submit in evidence so much of this letter as 
is quoted in the second and third specifications. The entire 
letter is before the Court, but I only submit so much as I refer 
to in evidence. 

The Judge- Advocate — I have a witness to present to the 
Court. 

Rudolph Kauefma2^2^, a witness called by the prosecution, 
then came before the Court and was duly sworn by the Judge- 
Advocate. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Q. Please state your name, your occupation, and your resi- 
dence. A. Kudolph Kauffmann; newspaper reporter connected 
with the Evening Star ; residence, 205 New Jersey Avenue, 
Northwest, Washington, D. 0. 

Q. Do you recognize the accused before this Court — General 
Hazen ? A. I do. 

Q. About how long have you known him ? A. I have 
no means of fixing the date when I became acquainted with 
him. 

Q. Approximately ? A. About two years ; in that neigh- 
borhood. 

Q. In what capacity have you known him ? A. As Chief 
Signal Officer of the Army. 

Q. As far as you are personally concerned — I mean as a re- 
porter ? A. Yes, sir ; as a reporter. 

Q. During that period have you seen General Hazen fre- 
quently in your capacity as a reporter ? A. No, sir ; not parti- 
cularly so ; occasionally. 

Q. For what purpose — items of news or what ? A. Items of 
news and general information. 

Q. Did you see General Hazen on or about the 1st or 2d of 
this month — the month of March, 1885 ? A. Yes, sir. 



THE HAZEl^ COURT-MAETIAL. 89 

Q. Did you have an interview with him then or talk with 
him on that occasion ? A. I had a conversation with him. 

Q. Where did it take place ? A. It was in the ojBfice of this 
hotel. 

Q. Will you be kind enough to tell the Court what paper this 
is ? (handing a newspaper to the witness). A. It is a copy of 
the Evening Star, of Washington, D. 0. 

Q. Of what date ? A. March 2, 1885. 

Q. Will you please indicate to the Court whetner or not there 
is any article in that paper written by you in reference to your 
interview with General Hazen on the 1st or 2d of March ? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Where is it ? (The witness indicated the place in the 
paper.) 

Q. Did you write the original of that ? A. I did. 

Q. Is it correctly reiDroduced in the paper here ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

The Judge-Advocate — With the permission of the Court I 
will now read the article referred to : 

"The Greely Party Disaster — General Hazen throwing the Blame 
ON THE Secretary of War. 

" * Is it true,' asked a Star reporter of General Hazen, * that you wrote 
a letter to the Secretary of War throwing the blame of the loss of the Gree- 
ly party upon his shoulders ? ' 

" ' I did write such a tetter,' was the reply. ' It was a straightforward 
statement of facts in regard to the matter, I produced evidence to show 
that, had my recommendation of having another expedition start from St. 
John's immediately after the loss of the Proteus not been entirely ignored 
by the War Department, the Greely party could all have been saved. I felt 
it my duty to rayself to make this statement after the severe manner in 
which the Secretary of War spoke in his report of my alluding to the matter 
in my annual report. My intention to go South was in no way connected 
with the letter.' (It was reported that General Hazen had asked to be al- 
lowed to go South, so as to be away when the letter was received and until 
Secretary Lincoln's term ended.) ' I intended, and still intend, to start to- 
ward the last of the week on an inspection tour of the Southern signal sta- 
tions, to be gone ten days or so. I had not the slightest intention of going 
away before the inauguration.' " 

I submit this extract, as read, in evidence. 



90 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

The Peesidekt — What dates would the last of the week 
involve in that new^spaper statement — what day of the week ? 

The Judge- Advocate — The newspaper was published on the 
2d of March, on Monday, and the last of the week would have 
been the 7th. (To Mr. Mackey:) I suppose there is no objection 
to the admission of this extract in evidence ? 

Mr. Mackey — The rule is to authenticate the paper, and then 
to authenticate^the extract. The paper has been authenticated. 

The Judge- Advocate — So has the extract. 

Mr. Mackey — As to whether that was the language used by 
the reporter is one thing, and whether it is the language used by 
the accused is another. 

The President — That question should be asked, whether he 
truthfully reported General Hazen in that interview. 

The Judge-Advocate (addressing the witness) — Does that 
language just read to you from this paper, as you have written 
it out, truly represent the language, or the tenor and effect of 
the language, used by General Hazen to you on that occasion at 
the interview ? 

A. It represents the tenor of the language. I would not tes- 
tify that every word was reported. I wrote it from memory ; 
took no notes. If I may be allowed to say, the sentences were 
not given in exactly that order. Part of it was in answer to 
questions I asked him. 

Q. It represents, however, the tenor and effect of your ques- 
tions and his answers ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was there any injunction or not on the part of General 
Hazen to you not to publish this interview or the statements 
made ? A. No, sir. 

Q. There was not ? A. No, sir ; there was nothing said 
about it. 

Q. How soon after you saw General Hazen did you write the 
article in question ? A. The next morning, if I remember cor- 
rectly. 

Q. About what time in the day before had you seen him? 
A. I should say it was about half-past seven or eight o'clock. 

Q. In the evening ? A. Yes, sir; I do not remember exactly 
the time. 



THE HAZEN COUET-MARTIAL. 91 

Q. About what time next morning did you write tlie article? 
A. About nine o'clock. 

The Judge-Advo€Ate — I have no further questions to ask 
the witness. 

Cross-examination. 
By Mr. Mac key : 

Q. Will you please state, as nearly as you can now recollect, 
the first question that you propounded to General Hazen to in- 
troduce the conversation on that occasion on the 1st of March? 
A. It was not a question. 

Q. What was it? what did you say? A. I told him that I 
wished to ask him about a paragraph that I had seen in a West- 
ern paper. 

Q. Then what further took place ? A. He said he had , not 
seen it, and asked me what it was. 

Q Xow try and recollect your response to that inquiry of 
his in substance. A. In substance it was that I had seen in a 
copy of the Chicago Trilune a paragraph which stated or said it 
was understood, or something of that character, that General 
Hazen had written a letter to the Secretary of War in which he 
threw the blame for the loss of the Greely party upon his shoul- 
ders ; and the paragraph went on to say, and I went on to say 
or intimate, that General Hazen's intention was to send this let- 
ter just before Secretary Lincoln went out of office, and that he 
also intended to be away about the time when this should be 
sent to the Secretary, so as not to be here at that time when the 
Secretary received it. 

Q. Was your statement, then, to the effect that there was a 
paragraph in the Chicago Trihune assailing General Hazen in 
connection with an alleged letter to the Secretary of War — the 
paragraph in the Chicago Tribune assailing General Hazen? A. 
Well, not assailing him. 

The Judge-Advocate (to Mr. Mackey) — Please confine your- 
self to what he said to General Hazen, and not to what the para- 
graph in the paper was ; that is not the point. 

Mr. Mackey — I am directing my attention to the point. 



92 THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 

The Judge- Advocate — If the paragraph is to be introduced 
the original must be produced, and not his recollection of it. 

Mr. Mackey — I am aware of that. (To the witness:) I ask 
you whether you did not state to General Hazen that he was 
attacked in the Chicago Tribune in a paragraph in connection 
with the letter alleged to have been written by him to the Secre- 
tary of War ? A. I do not remember that. 

Q. You do not ? A. No, sir, I do not. 

Q. Now please recollect, as near as you can, at least the 
substance of General Hazen's reply to you when you introduced 
the conversation in that form. A. As near as I can remember 
he said that it was nonsense ; that there was no truth in it ; 
that he had intended going away at this time, but there was no 
connection whatever between the letter and his intended trip 
to the Southern signal stations for inspection, as near as I can 
remember. 

Q. State as near as you can remember, what further reply 
General Hazen made touching the alleged letter. A. In reply 
to a direct question of mine, he said that he had written a let- 
ter, but, as I said, there was no connection between that letter 
and his intention to go away. 

Q. Now the direct question to which you refer — if you can, 
please recall it and repeat it. A. The direct question was re- 
garding the letter throwing blame for the loss of the Greely 
party upon the shoulders of the Secretary of War — a letter to 
the Secretary of War. 

Q, Speak in the first person, and, if you can, recollect the 
language of your question. A. It was, '' Was there such a let- 
ter," if I recollect right, as I had referred to in the Chicago 
paper? I will not say those were the exact words, or '* Did you 
write such a letter ? " 

Q. Give, as near as you can, the reply of General Hazen to 
that question. A. " I did write the letter." 

Q. '^The letter," or ^^a" letter? A. " Such a letter"; or he 
gave me to understand that the statement that he had written a 
letter of that tenor to the Secretary of War was correct. 

Q. Did he say, "I have written such a letter," or '^ I wrote 
the letter," or ''I wrote a letter " ? Can you swear to either of 



THE HAZElSr COUET-MARTIAL. 93 

those positively ? A. No, sir ; I would not swear to either one 
of them. 

Q. Can yon state positively whether General Hazen nsed the 
.words ^' Secretary of War " or not ? A. Either ^^ Secretary " or 
^* Secretary of War." 

Q. You state that positively ? A. Yes, sir ; as near as I 
can remember. It was some time ago. 

Q. As near as you can remember, then ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now please state what General Hazen said in substance, 
as near as you can recollect, and in the terms, if you can recol- 
lect. A. I do not remember whether I asked him what was 
the character of the letter then or not, but he said that the let- 
ter he felt in duty bound to write on account of the severe man- 
ner in which the Secretary had handled him in his annual re- 
port for having previously alluded to this matter in his. General 
Hazen's, annual report. 

Q. How long did this conversation last, or about how long, 
as far as you can recollect ? A. About a minute ; perhaps less 
— just enough to say these things. 

Q. Did you inform General Hazen at the time, or intimate 
to him, that he was being interviewed for publication? A. No, 
sir. 

Q. You did not ? A. No, sir ; I did not. 

Q. Please state the circumstances under which you met 
General Hazen on that occasion — whether in a chamber at a 
set interview, or whether it was a passing interview. A. 
I accidentally met him in the lobby of this hotel, the Eb- 
bitt House. 

Q. Were you seated with him ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Was he in motion or not ? A. Yes, sir ; he was. 

Q. Walking up and down ? A. Yes, sir ; and I stopped 
him. 

Q. Can you state whether General Hazen had any know- 
ledge from you, or intimation, that you intended to publish 
that conversation ? A. No, sir. 

Q. He did not ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Would you swear that the statements published under 
the title of an interview with General Hazen, or under the 



94 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

heading, " General Hazen throws the blame of the failure to 
relieve the Greely expedition on the shoulders of the Secretary 
of War," embody the language of General Hazen, his exact 
language ? A. 'No, sir ; not his exact language. 

Q. Did General Hazen seek you, or did you seek him, or 
was it a mere chance meeting ? A. It was a mere chance meet- 
ing on my part. 

Q. In giving such a conversation, according to your own 
practice and the custom of reporters, would you profess to give 
it in the exact words of the person interviewed, when you took 
no notes at the time ? A. I would if I felt satisfied that I re- 
membered. . 

Q. And taking no notes ? A. Yes, sir ; taking no notes. 

Q. Did you state that you cannot swear that the report, un- 
der the heading stated, in the Evening Star of the 2d of March 
was in the language of General Hazen — in the exact language ? 
A. It may not have been in the exact language. I say I would 
not be willing to swear to that word for word. Part of it was 
in answer to questions which I put. I asked him a question 
and he acknowledged it. Thereupon I said that he said so. 

Q. May not a reporter for the press — may you not as a judi- 
cious reporter (and I assume that only a judicious person occu- 
pies that honorable position) — magnify an item of news beyond 
the language of the person interviewed? 

The Judge-Adyocate — Will you please repeat the ques- 
tion ? 

Q. May you or do you not, as a reporter for the press, some- 
times magnify an item of news relating to an interview with a 
prominent man beyond the language used by the person inter- 
Iriewed? 

The Judge-Advocate — I object to the question. It has 
nothing to do with the case. The question is whether he mag- 
nified the language in this case. It has nothing to do with 
other occasions. 

Mr. Macket — May it please the Court, the purpose of the 
cross-examination is to apply to the witness proper mental and, 
it may be, moral tests, and those tests are eminently appropriate 
where a charge affecting an officer of the Army of high rank is 



THE HAZEN COUKT-MAETIAL. 95 

professedly based, in one of its specifications, on the assumed 
correctness of an alleged published interview. The practice of 
the witness, who declares himself the reporter who indited the 
alleged interview, is surely relevant. It relates to the repor- 
ter's practice as to whether he does not sometimes magnify 
interviews and the language of an interview, or whether it is 
his practice to limit the report severely to what transpired. 

I shall, then, pass to the further question as to whether he 
did not magnify this alleged interview in his ardor and zeal 
as a reporter for the press. And I submit to the court it is en- 
tirely unwarranted, it is not usual, to imjoose a restriction upon 
cross-examination where it tends to develop a material fact in 
the case. 

The Judge- Advocate— The witness has already stated, Mr. 
President, that he, to the best of his ability, gave the purport, 
tenor, and effect of General Hazen's conversation in the news 
paper article in question. The other side has to limit itself to 
the scope of the matter brought out in the examination-in-chief. 
What the practice of this reporter may have been in other cases 
has nothing to do with this. He has already, under oath, stated 
that the report submitted to this Court contained the tenor and 
substance of G-eneral Hazen's language. 

The Peesident — As the decision of the Court on this mat- 
ter appears necessary, a vote will be taken by ballot. The 
question is. Shall the objection of the Judge-Advocate to the 
question propounded by the counsel for the defence be sus- 
tained ? 

A vote was then taken by ballot. 

The Judge-Advocate — I am directed to announce as the 
decision of the Court that the objection is not sustained. 

The question was then read by the reporter as follows : 

Q. May you or do you not, as a reporter for tlie press, some- 
times magnify an item of news relating to an interview with a 
prominent man beyond the language used by the person inter- 
viewed ? A. No, sir ; not intentionally. 

Q. Is it your practice to give^ the exact language, where 
notes are not taken of what was said by the person interviewed? 
A. Yes, sir, if I am satisfied that I remember it. 



9b THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

Q. You haye stated that you gave the conyersation according 
to its tenor. What do you mean by the word " tenor " in that 
connection ? A. I mean that I abbreviated it somewhat, and, 
in asking General Hazen about the letter, referred to it as the 
letter spoken of in this Chicago Tribune paragraph. 

Q. You do not mean, then, that you gave it literally ? A. 
No, sir. I asked General Hazen if he had written such a letter. 
He said he had. Therefore I said he had written such a letter 
throwing blame on the Secretary of War ; that is, I put that 
in my question to him, in the question that I drew from the 
Chicago Tribune paragraph. 

Q. Did he incorporate your language in his reply, do you 
know, or in his own terms ? A. I would not care to state as to 
that. 

Q. You will not swear that he did not repeat your language 
and then answer you ? A. I do not think he repeated my lan- 
guage. If I remember correctly, he acknowledged haying writ- 
ten the letter. 

Q. How late did you sit up that night, Mr. Kauffmann ? 
A. Until about half-past nine or ten o'clock. 

Q. Did you retire at ten o'clock ? A. I did, sir. 

Q. Did you take anything that evening — take supper, or 
from sundown until ten o'clock take anything in the way of 
stimulants ? A. What do you mean, sir ? 

Q. A glass of champagne or sherry with your friends ? A. 
No, sir. I took a glass of ginger-ale, if you call that a stimu- 
lant. 

Q. Do you limit yourself to that beverage ? A. I do, and to 
lemonade. 

Q. No higher grade than ginger-ale or lemonade ? A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Can you state whether General Hazen published the 
alleged interview in the Evening Star 9 A. I do not under- 
stand your question exactl3^ 

Q. Did General Hazen publish the alleged interview in the 
Star, or procure you to publish it ? A. Did General Hazen 
publish the interview in the Star f 

Q. Yes ; I am reciting the language of the specification. 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 97 

A, No, sir ; lie had nothing whatever to do with publishing it 
in the Star. 

Q. Did he procure the publication to your knowledge ? A. 
No, sir. 

Q. He did not ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Did he seek the publication through you, if you can 
state ? A. No, sir ; I sought him. 

Q. You have stated that you did not intimate a purpose to 
publish ? A. As near as I can remember, I said nothing about 
publishing it. 

Q. Is it your practice to publish all conversations that may 
be had at a chance meeting with a gentleman in public posi- 
tion ? A. Oh ! no, sir. 

Q. Not at all ? A. No, sir ; not at all. 

Q. What meaning do you give to the word *^ interview " ? I 
ask you as an expert. The Judge- Advocate asked you with 
reference to an " interview " which you had. A. I regard an 
interview as the result of question and answer. 

Q. You reply that you had a conversation with him ? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Is there not a definite meaning, in the profession of jour- 
nalism, attached to the word ** interview " ? A. No, sir ; I 
think not. 

Q. Meaning a set and understood questioning and answer- 
ing with a view to publication — has it not that meaning ? A. 
I do not look upon it as such, as having any such meaning. 

Q. Or with a view to publication ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Have you not had interviews with General Hazen for the 
purposes of publication, as to other matters known to him, 
where your declared purpose was to obtain information for pub- 
lication ? A. No, sir ; there was no declared purj^ose about it, 
that I remember, on any occasion. 

Mr. Mackey (to the witness) — You stated in your direct 
examination that in opening the alleged interview with General 
Hazen you stated that you had seen in the Chicago Tribune a 
paragraph in reference to a letter alleged to have been written 
by him to the Secretary of War, Can you state whether this is 
the paragraph to which you referred (handing a newspaper to 



98 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

the witness) ? A. (after an examination of tlie paper). That is 
the paragraph. I have not seen it since then nntil now. 

Mr. Mackey — With the permission of the Court I will read 
it to the witness. 

The counsel read as follows : 

[From the Chicago Trihune of February 35, 1885.] 

*' The Geeely Party — Hazen charges the Secretary of War with 
Abandoning the Explorers. 

** Washington, D. C, February 24. 
(Special.) 
"General Hazen recently applied for permission to inspect the signal 
stations on the Southern coast. Before doing this he prepared a letter to 
the Secretary of War in which he directly charged that officer with the 
failure to relieve the Greely party. He sent to St. John's and obtained 
affidavits to the effect that there was ample time after Lieutenant Garling- 
ton's return to have sent a second relief expedition, and that the boats and 
men for such an expedition could have been obtained at St. John's. By 
doing this, General Hazen says in his letter, every life would have been 
saved; and this step, he adds, he urged upon the Secretary of War, who, 
according to General Hazen, refused to act, and therefore General Hazen 
charges him with being responsible for the death of Greely's men. This 
letter was kept back by General Hazen for two reasons, it is said. It was to 
be sprung upon the Secretary after General Hazen left the city on his tour 
of inspection South. The other reason for delay was to allow no time before 
the 4th of March for the Secretary to take any action in his own defence, 
and to strike a last blow at the retiring Cabinet officer. A week only 
remains in which Mr. Lincoln will be Secretary of War, and during that 
period the Chief Signal Officer will be required to stay in Washington, and 
will not be permitted to go on a tour of inspection South." 

Q. Did you sliow that to General Hazen at jour alleged in- 
terview ? A. No, sir. 

Q. But this is what moved you ? A. Yes, sir. 
The witness was then further examined as follows : 

Redirect Examination, 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Q. General Hazen knew you to be a reporter for the Star ; 
you had seen him frequently as a reporter for the Star f A. 
Yes, sir. 



THE HAZEN COUKT-MAETIAL. .99 

Q. What had. been your practice with reference to previous 
statements made by General Hazen to you when you saw him on 
previous occasions— did you or not publish them in the Star 9 
A. Yes, sir, if they were of interest. 

The Judge-Advocate — That is all I have to ask. Have the 
Court any questions ? 

The PKESiDEiq^T — ]N"one are heard. The witness is discharged, 
from further attendance. 

The WiTKESS — I would like to make a statement in the na- 
ture of a correction of my testimony, if I may be allowed. 

The PRESiDEi^T — You may proceed. 

The Witness — I simply want to state that I said that the 
article in the Star was mine. It was all mine except the head- 
lines ; I had nothing whatever to do with the heading. 



THIRD DAT. 



KOOMS OF THE GrEI^ERAL OoURT-MARTIAL, 

Ebbitt House, Washii^gton^, D. C, 

Friday, March 13, 1885, 11 a.m. 

The Court met pursuant to adjournment. 

The Judge- Advocate — Mr. President, I now desire to in- 
troduce a document pur|)orbing to be the annual report of the 
Secretary of War for the year 1883. As I understand it, the 
defence is willing to admit that this is the report of the Secre- 
tary of War for the year 1883, and that the same was received 
from the War Department at the office of the Chief Signal 
Officer in the usual course of business, with the stamp at the 
bottom of this pamphlet — that is, December 11, 1883. (To Mr. 
Mackey :) Is that correct ? 

Mr. Mackey — Yes, with the addition that the admission is 
made because of the stamp being upon it. 

The Judge- Advocate — I should like the admission to be 
made without that qualification. 

Mr. Mackey — But no admission will be made without that 
qualification. We admit it because of the stamp being upon it. 

The Judge-Advocate — That will necessitate my calling a 
witness. There is no use of accepting it with that qualifi- 
cation. 

The President — You may call the witness, if you desire. 

James D. McLoughlik, a witness called by the prosecu- 
tion, then came before the Court and was duly sworn by the 
Judge- Advocate. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Q. Please state your name. A. James D. McLoughlin. 

100. 



THE IIAZEIS- COUET-MARTIAL. 101 

Q. Where do you live ? A. At No. 804 Eighth Street, 
N. W., Washington, D. 0. 

Q. Where are you employed ? A. At the Signal Office. 

Q. Were you employed in that office in December, 1883 ? 
A. I was. 

Q. Do you recognize this document (handing a document to 
the witness) ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State to the Court when it was received at the Signal 
Office. A. It came to my desk at the Signal Office on Decem- 
ber 11, 1883. 

Q. You are a clerk in the Signal Office ? A. Yes, sir. 

The Judge-Advocate— This is the document that I intro- 
duced to the Court a little while ago, and which was admitted 
by the other side. 

Mr. Mackey — We have no questions to ask. 

There being no questions by the Court, the witness was ex- 
cused. 

The Judge-Advocate — In order that the purpose of the 
introduction of this document may be clear to the Court, and to 
the defence as well, I desire to call the attention of tlie Court 
to a portion of the report of the Secretary of War in which cer- 
tain matters in reference to the relief of Lieutenant Oreely were 
discussed by the Secretary of War — matters pertaining to the 
allegations before this Court in the first, second, and third spe- 
cifications. 

At the conclusion of the report of Mr. Lincoln, the Secre- 
tary of War, there is a memorandum which reads as follows : 

'' The Secretaries of "War and the Navy have decided that it is not 
practicable to send' another expedition to the relief of Lieutenant Greely 
this year." 

This memorandum is dated September 19, 1883. I offer the 
entire matter in evidence, but I only read so much as is perti- 
nent to the allegation. I do not care about giving the remain- 
der, if the Court does not wish it. If the Court desires the en- 
tire memorandum, to be read I will read it all. 

The PRESiDEi>rT — We do not particularly desire anything 
about it. You can read what you want to have received. 



102 THE HAZEN COUET-MARTIAL. 

The Judge-Adyocate— I will, then, rest content with what I 
have read. This will be appended to the record and marked 
Exhibit 0. 

Mr. Mackey — Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, I 
object to the admission of that memorandum. The rule is, I 
submit to the Court, that the eyidence must be confined to the 
issue, and the issue is as to whether the accused, knowing that 
the Secretary of War had decided that it was not practicable to 
send an expedition to the Arctic regions in the month of Sep- 
tember, 1883, did criticise and impugn the action of the Secre- 
tary of War. 

There is a memorandum proposed to be introduced in evi- 
dence which sets forth, not the decision of the Secretary of War, 
but the joint decision of the Secretary of War and the Secretary 
of the Navy. It may be suggested that if it was the decision of 
the Secretary of War and of the Navy, as the Secretary of War 
entered into it as a component part, the requirement of law is 
satisfied as to the evidence being confined to the issue ; for it is 
the decision of the Secretary of War and also the decision of the 
Secretary of the Navy. 

But the reason of the rule that the evidence must be con- 
fined to the issue is that the accused may be fully apprised as 
to what he is to answer. Neither in terms nor in effect is the 
joint decision of the Secretaries of War and the Navy the de- 
cision of the Secretary of War. The joint decision of the 
Secretary of War and of the Navy may be of higher authority 
than the decision either of the Secretary of War or the Secre- 
tary of the Navy simply. But it cannot be said of the joint 
decision of the Secretary of War and the Navy that it is the de- 
cision of the Secretary of War, any more than it can be said 
that it is the decision of the Secretary of the Navy. 

Suppose that, instead of haying here recited a joint decision 
of the Secretary of War and of the Navy, that it were proposed 
to read a decision of the Secretary of War and of the Nayy, and 
of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Interior, 
and of the Attorney-Ceneral ^ With the same reason might that 
be put in evidence, the joint decision of five members of the 
Cabinet, and the prosecution could allege whereas the Secretary 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 103 

of War was one of the number, the Court must hold that it was 
the decision of the Secretary of War. 

But we are not called to plead to any such averment ; and 
the rule, I submit to the Court, is that the allegation limits the 
proof. This is, as to the rules of evidence, a court of common 
law, although a court-martial; and the distinctive difference be- 
tween a court of common law and a court sitting under the 
code civil is that under the civil law matters that do not belong 
to the issue may be introduced in evidence, but at common law 
the evidence must be confined to the issue. 

And we respectfully submit to the Court, under the rules 
of evidence, that the specification recites the decision of the 
Secretary of A\^ar, and it is not germane to the issue to submit 
ill evidence a decision which recites upon its face that it is the 
decision of the Secretaries of the War and Navy Departments. 

The Judge- Advocate — Mr. President, to me the language 
of this memorandum seems to be very plain. It says : " The 
Secretaries of War and the Navy have decided" — there being 
two, they both must have agreed to that decision. Therefore 
there were two individual acts jointly expressed in this memo- 
randum. If the Secretary of War had not so decided, and the 
Secretary of the Navy had not so decided, it would not have 
been so recited here. It required the individual act of each to 
come to a conclusion upon that paper, and it seems that both 
agreed upon the subject. Inasmuch as the Secretary of War is 
the official superior, according to the 1195th section of the Re- 
vised Statutes, of the Chief Signal Officer, I presume only so 
much was considered in the specification as refers to the Secre- 
tary of War ; because this memorandum plainly shows that the 
Secretary of War did so desire not to send an Arctic expedition. 
It was just as much his individual act as it was the joint act 
of the two. I do not know how the memorandum containing 
those conclusions came about, but I simply judge from the lan- 
guage. 

I would also call the attention of the Court to the fact that, 
if there is any variance between the proof and t]ie allegation, 
the Court, under the rules of military law, is perfectly at liberty 
to substitute or strike out and correct any variance, if it ch9oses. 



104 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

I do not think, however, it is any material variance, and I 
think the accused, having already admitted this report in evi- 
dence before this Court, comes with little grace now to object to 
part of it. 

Mr. Macket — We admitted nothing as to that report. We 
offered to admit that it bore the stamp of the Signal Office. 

I invite the attention of the Court further to the fact that 
this is an unsigned memorandum. It does not profess to be a 
part of the report, and, for aught I know, is not referred to in 
the report of the Secretary of War. It is an unsigned memo- 
randum. It may have been placed there by the election of some 
clerk. It opens with the words, *' The Secretaries of War and 
the Navy have decided " — there may be some record of that de- 
cision beyond this. This may not be the true record. It only 
professes to be a memorandum of some decision that precedes it, 
unsigned, not incorporated in the report of the Secretary of 
War. The signature of the Secretary of War appears, and then 
follows the memorandum. I am not aware that the memoran- 
dum is referred to in the report. It may be. That would con- 
nect it with the report. This was submitted to me a few min- 
utes ago. 

We make no admissions as to the report whatsoever. It is 
proved that it was filed in the Signal Office on December 11, 
1883. Our proposed admission was rejected, and we submit to 
the Court that this is a memorandum of the decision of the 
Secretaries of War and the Navy. 

The document referred to was then submitted to the mem- 
bers of the Court for their inspection. 

The Judge- Advocate — Mr. President, in addition to what 
I have already said, I desire to call attention to page 20 of the 
report of the Secretary of War introduced here in evidence, 
where it states: ^^A copy of a memorandum of the views of 
the Secretary of the Navy and myself, made at the time, is ap- 
pended." 

He speaks in reference to the relief party to be sent out in 
September, 1883, and refers to the Proteus disaster in the same 
report. 

The President— There is no doubt that the officiality of 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 105 

this paper could be determined by bringing here the Adjutant- 
General of the Army, if no other person ; and, therefore, it is a 
question only whether it is necessary, and that will depend some- 
what upon the admissions. 

The Judge-Advocate— I understood the other side ad- 
mitted that it was the report of the Secretary of War. 

The Peesidekt — I do not know. The question will come 
up in a moment, when you are ready for the main question. 

The Judge- Advocate — I am ready for the question. 

The Pkesidext — Gentlemen, the question is, Shall the ob- 
jection to the admission of the memorandum be sustained? 

Mr. Mackey — Will the Court permit me to submit in 
writing, in two lines, the question upon which I ask its de- 
cision, which is, whether proof of the decision of the Secretary 
of War and of the Navy shall be admitted to support the 
charge ? 

The PEESiDEiq"T — You may submit the question directly, but 
that is not the question we are now considering. 

A vote was then taken by ballot. 

The Judge- Advocate — I am directed by the Court to an- 
nounce that the objection of the accused to the admission of the 
paper in question is not sustained. 

The Preside]!^! — ISTow, if there is any different understand- 
ing on the part of the defence as to what the intention of the 
question was, they can resubmit the question and give their 
ideas of it. 

Mr. Mackey — We desire to submit the question alone wheth- 
er, assuming that the memorandum is sufficiently proved, it is 
admissible in evidence, as upon its face it shows a joint decision 
of the Secretaries of War and of the Navy, and the accused is 
charged with reference to the decision of the Secretary of War 
alone, and not with reference to the joint decision of the Sec- 
retary of War and of the Navy. We object to its admission as 
evidence, assuming it to be proven. 

The Judge- Advocate — Mr. President, as I understand it, 
that is precisely what the Court has just now ruled upon. The 
original objection was to the introduction of this document 
because it recited a joint decision of the Secretary of War and 



106 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

of the Navy, while the accused was simply charged in the spe- 
cification with having criticised the action of the Secretary of 
War. 

A member of the Court — That was not my understanding 
when I voted. 

The Peesidei^t — The question was whether the paper should 
be admitted. Now, if the question is put in writing and pre- 
sented to the Court, we will have a decision upon that. 

The counsel for the defence then prepared a written objec- 
tion, which was read by the Judge- Advocate as follows : 

"We object to the admission of the paper entitled 'Memorandum,' on 
the ground that it purports to be a joint decision of the Secretaries of War 
and the Navy that it was not practicable to send another expedition to the 
relief of Lieutenant Greely in September, 1883. 

" The accused is not charged with having impugned such joint decision. 
He is charged with having criticised the decision of the Secretary of War, 
and the proof must be confined to the issue." 

The Peesidekt — It must not be put on that ground. I only 
meant to say that if the accused thought the question had not 
been properly stated in the previous decision, that a new ques- 
tion might be made to cover the point. But I did not request 
it at all. 

Mr. Mackey — That is the question. 

The Peesidekt — That is what the counsel for the accused 
presents as what he thinks the question was. 

The Judge-Advocate — I would like to be heard a moment 
on this question. 

Mr. Mackey — I should like to read my own objection to the 
Court. That is the proper professional way of doing it. 

The Judge- Advocate — I have no objection to that at all. 

Mr. Mackey (reading) — " We object to the admission of the 
paper entitled ' Memorandum,' on the ground that it purports 
to be the joint decision of the Secretaries of War and the ISTavy 
that it was not practicable to send another expedition to the re- 
lief of Lieutenant Greely in September, 1883. The accused is 
not charged with having impugned such joint decision. He is 
charged with having criticised the decision of the Secretary of 
War, and the proof must be confined to the issue." 



THE HAZEN COUET-MARTIAL. 107 

The Judge-Advocate — As I have said before, Mr. Presi- 
dent, I consider the objection here made as a most remarkable 
one. I stated before that, in order that the Secretary of War 
and the Secretary of the Navy should be able to come to a joint 
conclusion on the matter at issue, it required the complete as- 
sent of each one of them, and that, therefore, this joint action 
is as much an individual act of the Secretary of War as it is an 
individual act of the Secretary of the Navy. Their thoughts, 
their ideas in the matter happened to agree. They expressed 
their decision in this memorandum jointly, I presume to pre- 
serve the record of it. The Secretary of War says in his report, 
** A copy of the memorandum of the views of the Secretary of 
the Navy and myself, made at the time, is appended." It is as 
much the action of the one as it is the action of the other. 

Now, if we go to other matters to seek information in the 
criminal law on the joint action of people, we find that, though 
one may commit an offence or a crime of a certain character, 
and another person may stand by and see him do it and aid him 
in doing it, though he may not have done the exact act that the 
other party did, yet both are indicted as principals and can be 
tried for the principal act. But should they desire a severance, 
each one can be tried separately, though he may not have done 
the exact act that the other is charged with having committed. 
That is to say, the proof may be at variance ; they may have 
done it jointly. 

Applying that rule to this case, there was in this case an in- 
dividual act, an individual acquiescence of the Secretary of War 
in these views, an individual acquiescence of the Secretary of 
the Navy, but thoy expressed them jointly. There could not 
have been any such decision had either one or the other dis- 
agreed. 

For the purposes of this case it makes no difference whether 
it was the joint decision or whether it was so announced or not. 

The specification simply recites that the Secretary of War 
had so decided. The Secretary of War was the official superior, 
under the law, of the Chief Signal Officer. And I earnestly 
ask the Court to take this matter into serious consideration be- 
fore they make their final decision. 



108 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

Mr. Macket — I shall occupy the time of the Court but a 
moment. If I correctly translate the language of the learned 
Judge-Advocate, his proposition is that if the offence be jointly 
charged as committed against one, even though the proof show- 
that it was committed against two jointly, the requirement of 
law is satisfied. 

The Judge- Advocate — I beg your pardon ; I said by one. 

Mr. Mackey — Suppose a party indicted charged with the 
larceny of goods, of a certain article, the property of John Doe 
and Richard Roe. We come into court and it is proposed to 
prove that it is the separate, sole, and distinct property of John 
Doe. Why, the rulings are innumerable upon the principle 
there involved that there is a fatal variance in such a case be- 
tween the indictment and the proof. But, it may be suggested, 
that may do in a criminal court, where you are dealing with 
counts in an indictment. But the authorities who have written 
upon the law of courts-martial say that precisely the same prin- 
ciples that govern the rulings of criminal courts of common 
law must govern a court-martial. There is no variance among 
the authorities on that point. 

In this case it is urged upon the Court that a joint decision 
made by the Secretary of War and of the Navy in relation to a 
naval expedition must be regarded as the sole decision of the 
Secretary of War. If the two Secretaries are to be separated at 
all with reference to this decision, it being a decision in regard 
to a naval expedition, we could more rationally assume that it 
was the decision of the Secretary of the Navy alone, and not 
the decision of the Secretary of War. Upon its face it related 
to a matter not ordinarily within the jurisdiction of the War 
Department, but of the Navy Department. It was an expedi- 
tion by sea, and it would not be assumed for a moment, from 
the language of the specification, that that is the decision as to 
which we are charged with criticising and impugning. 

I state in good faith, may it please the Court, that I expect- 
ed the production of some decision of the Secretary of War as 
the Secretary of War, deciding in the line of his duty. We are 
not furnished that, but are presented here, as the very founda- 
tion of the prosecution, with the joint decision of the two Sec- 



THE haze:n^ couet-martial. 109 

retaries. The prosecution miglit as Avell present ns the joint 
decision of the Secretary of War and of the Navy and of the 
Attorney- General of the United States n^Don this question, and 
say. That is what we meant in the specification : we meant the 
joint decision of the two Secretaries that General Hazen im- 
pugned. Bat the rule is that the prosecution must identify the 
matter of the charge, and the proof must be directed to that. 

The learned Judge- Advocate states that the Court may ad- 
mit it and consider it hereafter. That is true. But if an ob- 
jection is made to the introduction of evidence on the ground 
that it is irrelevant, the Court passes upon it in the first in- 
stance, and does not burden the record with what is not perti- 
nent to the issue. In other words, the Court will do at the be- 
ginning what in law and in justice and good conscience is de- 
manded at the end. 

The Judge- Advocate — Mr. President, the nice and fine dis- 
tinctions permitted in civil courts in matters of this kind do 
not pertain in courts-martial, according to the books of refe- 
rence which we have ; and courts-martial, when the proof and 
the allegation are at variance, have full and ample power to cor- 
rect that variance in their findings. I submit that the fine and 
nice distinctions applicable in the civil courts, which the coun- 
sel brings in here, are not applicable in military courts, accord- 
ing to our military law-books. 

Mr. Mackey — I have here an authority, if the Court desires 
to consider it, upon which my remarks rest as to the laws of evi- 
dence governing this Court in the admission of testimony. I 
refer to 3d Greenleaf, sections 476 and 477. The whole subject 
is there treated as to these courts being bound by the same rules 
that govern in courts of common law. 

The Preside]S"T — Does any member of the Court desire that 
the Court be cleared for deliberation ? 

A member of the Court — I desire to have the Court cleared. 

The Presidei^t — The doors will be closed. 

The Court was then cleared for deliberation. When the 
doors were re-opened, and the accused and his counsel had re- 
sumed their seats, the Judge- Advocate announced the decision 
as follows (a short recess in the meantime having been taken) : 



110 THE IIAZEN COIJRT-MAETIAL. 

The Judge-Advocate — I am directed by the Court to an- 
nounce as its decision that the objection made by the defence is 
not sustained. 

Mr. President, I would now ask that the accused produce 
before this Court the telegram alleged to have been sent to him 
by Captain Mills on September 19, 1883, from this city to Port 
Townsend, Washington Territory. 

Mr. Mackey — If it is in our possession we shall do so ; and I 
think we have it. 

After a few moments spent in consultation with the defence 
the Judge- Advocate said : 

The Judge- Advocate — I desire to state that in response to 
the notice served on the other side for the production of the 
telegram in question, the defence say, if I understand them cor- 
rectly, that it is not in their possession now. 

Mr. Mackey — Not now. But I will state that the defence 
would not demand that the original of that telegram should be 
produced if Captain Mills, the Acting Chief Signal Officer, can 
identify the alleged copy as a true copy. In that case we will 
dispense with the introduction of the original. But General 
Hazen has not borne it in memory, and cannot remember. 

The Judge- Advocate — And you will consent to give this 
copy the same force and effect as if the original had been pro- 
duced ? 

Mr. Mackey — Yes ; that is the force and effect of my state- 
ment. 

The Judge- Advocate — I want it understood, so that there 
will be no misunderstanding about it hereafter. 

Mr. Mackey — We have saved the necessity of that. 

Samuel M. Mills, a witness called by the prosecution, then 
-came before the Court, and was duly sworn by the Judge- Advo- 
cate. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Q. Please state your name, rank, station, and duties. A. 
Samuel M. Mills'; Captain Fifth Artillery; at present stationed 
in Washington ; Acting Chief Signal Officer of the Army. 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. Ill 

Q. Do you know who the Chief Signal Officer of the Army 
was during the month of December, 1883 ? A. Yes, sir ; Gen- 
eral Hazen. 

Q. You were on duty in the office during that month as Sig- 
nal Officer ? A. I think so ; I cannot say positively. I will 
have to refer to the reports — the morning report. 

Mr. Mackey— Please do not state it unless you know. 

The WiTj^ESS— In December, 1883 ? General Hazen may 
have been temporarily absent ; I cannot answer. 

Q. Were you the next in rank to him ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. If he had been absent would you not have acted in his 
place ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know v/hether you acted in his place during. De- 
cember or not ? A. I could not state from memory whether I 
was acting. It frequently occurred during the year that I was 
acting, but I could not say positively whether I was acting dur- 
ing the month of December, 1883, or not, without referring to 
the records. 

Q. Have you any means of refreshing your memory as to 
whether you acted at that time or not? A. Not without consult- 
ing the records of the office. It frequently happened that I was 
acting for a few days at a time during the temporary absence 
of the Chief Signal Officer, but I could not recall it from 
memory. 

Q. We will leave that subject for the present and go to an- 
other one. Do you remember anything about a telegram sent 
by you to General Hazen somewhere about the 10th of Decem- 
ber, 1883 ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q What is that paper you have in your hand ? A. That is 
what it purports to be — a copy of a telegram sent by me to Gen- 
eral Hazen on or about tlie 19th of September, 1883. 

The Judge-Advocate— With the permission of the Court 
I will read it. 

The Judge- Advocate read as follows : 

*« September 19, 1883. 
" To General W. B. Hazen, Port Townsend, W. T. : 

" Secretaries War and Xavy, after patient consultation with Arctic ex- 



112 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

plorers, conclude nothing further possible this year. No chance to put ves- 
sel sufficiently north to reach Greely either by boat or sledge. 

•• (Signed) Mills. 

*' A true copy of the original on file in the Telegraph Division, Office of 
the Chief Signal Officer of the Army. 

"B. M. PURSELL, 

" Second Lieutenant Signal Corps, U. S. A., 
" In charge of the correspondence and records in the Office of the Chief Sig- 
nal Officer of the Army." 

(The foregoing paper is appended and marked Exhibit D.) 

The Judge-Advocate — I understand that the other side ad- 
mits this copy to have the same effect as though the original 
had been produced here. 

Mr. Mackey — That is the admission, and no more. 

The Judge- Advocate — The defence now admits that the 
accused received a telegram to the effect as stated in this paper. 
Is that correct ? 

Mr. Mackey — That is correct ; that which led to the ad- 
mission being the consideration that the prosecution could not 
prove that General Hazen received it unless we admit it. We 
admit it. 

The Judge-Advocate— Mr. President, I can speak for m.y- 
self on that subject. The counsel on the other side does not 
know whether I could prove it or not, and I ask him to con- 
fine himself to his own side of the house in that respect. I 
think I am perfectly capable of telling whether I can prove it 
or not, 

Mr. Mackey — We will endeavor not to follow the example 
of the Judge-Advocate hereafter, may it please the Court. 

The Judge-Advocate (to the witness) — You are not able to 
tell whether General Hazen was Chief Signal Officer or not dur- 
ing the month of December, without consulting the records ? 
A. I could not tell whether I was Acting Chief Signal Officer 
during the month of December or not, without consulting the 
records. 

The Judge-Advocate — I am afraid if the other side will 
not admit that General Hazen was the Chief Signal Officer on 
the 11th of December last, I will have to delay this Court in 



THE HAZEX COUBT-MAETIAL. 113 

order to enable the witness to refresli his memory on that sub- 
ject by referring to the records. 

Ml'. Mackey — We admit that he is the Chief Signal Officer 
of the Army now and was then. The question as to whether 
lie was acting there on duty on that date is another question. 

The President — I presume it is very probable that Captain 
Mills was acting at the date lie wrote that dispatch, but it is 
quite certain tliat he can, by inquiring of his own office, ascer- 
tain what dates he was Acting Signal Officer. If he cannot do 
it this afternoon before the adjournment of the Court, he can 
produce the record to-morrow morning. 

Mr. Mackey — General Hazen is unable to recall the special 
fact. 

The Peesideis'T — The witness has the record at his office, 
and by morning can produce it. 

The Judge-Advocate— That, however, Mr. President, de- 
lays the close of my case until such time as this witness is able 
to come before this Court and positively testify on that subject. 

The President (to the witness) — How long would it take 
you to ascertain this afternoon ? 

The Witness — I could ascertain in half an hour. 

The Judge-Advocate — I cannot proceed without it. 

The President — We will take a recess, then, for a half an 
hour. 

A recess was then taken to enable the witness to procure the 
necessary information. 

The recess having expired, all being present as before, the 
examination of the witness was resumed. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Q. Will you please state to the Court whether you now know 
if G-eneral Hazen was on duty as Chief Signal Officer during the 
month of December, 1883 ? A. On consulting the records, the 
return which is made to the Adjatant-General of the Army at 
the end of eveiy month, which shows the days absent of any 
officer — a return which is made from all bureau officers and 
headquarters — General Hazen does not appear to have been 
absent any day during the month of December. 



114 THE HAZEN COUKT-MARTIAL. 

Q. What is that paper you liave in your hand ? A. This is 
the monthly return that is made to the Adjutant-General" of the 
Ai-my of the oflQcers and tlieir stations^ and their absence, if 
any. 

Q. Who is it signed by ? A. It is signed by General Hazen, 
the Chief Signal Officer. 

Q. Is that his signature ? A. Yes, sir. 

The Judge- Advocate — I offer this report in evidence. 

The report referred to will be found in the appendix, marked 
Exhibit E. 

The Peesidekt — I presume if General Hazen was absent 
at any time during that month, on account of your rank 
you would have been announced in orders as Acting Signal 
Officer ? 

The Witness— Yes, sir. 

The Judge-Adyocate— This would for the present conclude 
the case of the prosecution ; but I would not now like to an- 
nounce formally that the prosecution here rested, for I desire to 
have an opportunity, before making that formal announcement, 
to examine tl^e record of the Court wliicli has not yet been 
written up. I hardly think it would be fair that I should be 
required now to announce the close of the prosecution, because 
after the examination of the record I might find some slight 
omissions which I have overlooked, and I would not like to be 
cut off from supplying them. Therefore I would like an oppor- 
tunity until to-morrow morning to examine the record, and 
then, if I am satisfied, to make the formal announcement of 
the close of the prosecution. 

Mr. Mackey — The counsel for the government makes that 
statement probably on the assumption that the counsel for the 
accused does not propose to cross-examine the witness. 

The Judge-Advocate — I beg pardon. You may crops-ex- 
amine, if you desire. 

Mr. Mackey — May it please the Court, I propose to pro- 
pound some questions to Captain Mills which would not of 
right be allowed in cross-examination, the cross-examination 
being restricted to matters as to which the witness has been 
examined in chief. But, to save the necessity of again requiring 



THE HAZEIS" COUET-MAETIAL. 115 

the appearance of Captain Mills, I will propound the questions 
and ask leave of the Court to permit them to be answered at 
this stage. 

The President — You may proceed. 

Cross-examination. 
By Mr. Mackey : 

Q. A memorandum has been introduced here purporting to 
be a memorandum of the decision of the Secretaries of War and 
the Navy, contained in a pamphlet bearing the stamp of the 
Signal Office. Can you inform me whether any manuscript 
paper containing the matter of that memorandum was filed in 
the Signal Office ? 

The Judge-Adyocate — It is hardly necessary for me to 
quote to this Court the elementary rules that govern the ex- 
amination of witnesses. The cross-examination has of necessity 
to be restricted to matters embraced in the examination-in- 
ch ief. I have not called this witness for the purpose of estab- 
lishing any memorandum. I have not asked him a question 
upon it. The question now propounded is entirely foreign to 
the examination-in-chief. If the defence desires Captain Mills 
as a witness they can call him. But I do not now wish that the 
defence should inject into the prosecution its defence. If it 
has anything to say on that subject let them call Captain Mills. 
He can be brought here at any time. I ask the Court to pro- 
ceed regularly, in accordance with the rules of evidence ; for if 
it once goes beyond them there is no knowing where the mat- 
ter may end. 

Mr. Mackey — It is not necessary, at this stage of the case, 
to argue the question, but the authorities show that it is purely 
a matter within the discretion of the Court. 

The Judge-Advocate — I would like to remind the counsel 
of his own statement, made a little while aofo, that courts-martial 
are governed by the common-law rules of evidence, and I would 
like to hold him down to that. 

Mr. Mackey — That is a rule of evidence. 

The President— Is it understood that Captain Mills is now 



116 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

a witness for the defence, in case the examination should com- 
mence by the defence ? 

Mr. MACKEY^If the prosecution announces that it has 
closed we will make Captain Mills a witness for the defence. 

The President — The question, then, will only be as to 
whether the Court, without objection from the defence, will 
permit this examination to proceed in the morning on the part 
of the prosecution, after the record is read, notwithstanding 
your action with the witness at present as proposed. 

Mr. Mac KEY — I will assent to that. 

The Judge- Advocate — I do not quite understand the pro- 
position. 

The PRESiDEiq"T — The j)roposition is this : If the defence 
commences the examination of Captain Mills now as their wit- 
ness, I ask whether there is any objection on the part of the 
defence to your reserving the riglit to continue your examina- 
tion in the morning after the reading of the record, if you so 
desire ? 

The Judge- Advocate — I have no objection to that, pro- 
vided that Captain Mills is not now cross-examined, but is con- 
sidered as giving original testimony for the defence. 

The Presideis^'t — The defence will please state whether they 
will consider him their witness or not. 

Mr. Mackey — We will consider him as our witness. 

The President — Then the decision of the Court is that, 
with the understanding that the Judge- Advocate may continue 
his examination in the morning, the defence may commence to 
examine the witness as their witness. 

Mr. Mackey — Yes, the defence not being bound to proceed 
in the morning, unless the Judge- Advocate states that he has 
closed. 

The direct examination of the witness was then proceeded 
with on the part of the defence. 

By Mr. Mackey : 

Q. Please state, after examining that memorandum, if any pa- 
per or manuscript containing the matter of that memorandum 
is on file in the Signal Office to your knowledge. A. From 



THE HAZEIS- COUKT-MARTIAL. 117 

memory, I do not think that a signed copy of the memoran- 
dum was furnished to the office of the Chief Signal Officer 
by the Secretary of War or of the Navy at the time the decision 
was rendered, and, in looking througli the records recently, I 
could not find a copy of it there, although I do believe that 
there were a number of hektograph copies of it struck off at 
the time, but they were unsigned and were for general distri- 
bution. 

Q. By whom were they struck off ? A. It was done at the 
War Department or somewhere in the War or Navy Depart- 
ments. I do not know where. 

Q. It may have been in the Navy Department. Could it 
not have been that they were struck off there ? A. Yes, it 
may have been so. I simply saw them in hektograph form after 
reading the decision. 

Q. That memorandum bears date September 19, 1883 ? A. 
Yes, sir ; it was about that time. 

Q. Were you acting as Chief Signal Officer at that date ? 
A. I was. 

Q. Was General Hazen in the city or absent from the city ? 
A. He was absent. 

Q. Can you state, as a matter of fact, whether that memo- 
randum was a memorandum officially furnished to the Signal 
Office, or a memorandum furnished to the press for circulation 
through the newspapers ? A. The Secretary of War sent for 
me and showed me a copy of this memorandum. He may have 
given me a copy at the time, but my recollection is that it was 
intended more especially to be given to the Associated Press as 
an answer to all questions that had been raised by parents and 
friends and other persons suggesting this or that relief party. 
But I am under the impression that he gave me a hektograph 
copy of it ; at any rate I saw it. He announced it to me, and 
told me that that was the decision. 

Q. That memorandum purports, as you see, to be the de- 
cision of the Secretaries of the War and of the Navy. Do you 
know of any decision of the Secretary of War, separate and 
apart from that, on file in your office ? A. No, sir. 

Mr. Mackey — That will do. I have no further question. 



118 THE HAZEN C OURT-M AETIAL. 

Cross-exammation. 
By the Judge- Advocate : 

Q. Who do you say communicated this decision of the Sec- 
retary of War and the Navy to you as to this relief expedition ? 
A. The Secretary of War, I think, in person. 

Q. He communicated it to you ? A. He sent for me, and 
either handed me a copy or asked me to read it, or something 
to that effect. I got it through the Secretary of War. 

Q. From the Secretary of War ? A. Yes, sir ; from the 
Secretary of War. 

Q. Do I understand you to say also that this decision of the 
Secretary of War was generally disseminated throughout the 
country through the Associated Press, and scattered broadcast 
everywhere ? A. Yes, sir ; that was purposely done, I think, 
because there were so many anxious inquiries as to what would 
be done, and so many suggestions had been made, that I think 
it was purposely done as an answer to all suggestions and all 
inquiries. 

Q. Therefore it was generally known, and more particularly 
in your office ? A. Oh ! yes, sir; it was well known. It was a 
well-established fact. 

By Mr. Mackey : 

Q. Did this decision of the Secretaries of War and the Navy 
relate to a military or naval expedition ? 

The Judge-Advocate — One moment. 

Mr. Mackt^y — It is unnecessary to answer that ; the paper 
shows for itself. 

By the Court : 

Q. I would like to ask the witness what relation exists in 
point of time and substance between the telegram sent to Gene- 
ral Hazen and the report submitted to the witness by the Sec- 
retary of War ? A. It was the same date — September 19. 

Q. And the one sent in consequence of the other ? A. Yes, 
sir. It was September 19, and my dispatch to General Hazen 
was of the same date, September 19. 



THE IIAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 119 

Q. For what reason was tlie dispatch sent ? A. Because of 
this decision. 

Q. Did the Secretary of War say that the decision was his 
own ? A. Not specially. 

Mr. Mackey — I would like to ask another question. 

The Judge- Advocate — I presume it can be considered as a 
question by the Court. 

Mr. Mackey — Yes, assuming that the witness has been re- 
called for the purpose of this question. (To the witness :) Did 
or did not the Secretary of War state to you at that interview 
that the Secretary of the Navy and himself had come to this 
conclusion ? 

Tlie Judge- Advocate — Do I understand, Mr. President, 
that tiie Court adopts the question ? 

The President — There has been no objection to it. I can- 
not tell. 

Mr. Mackey — It is assumed that he is recalled. (To the 
witness :) Did or did not the Secretary of War state to you at 
that time, if you can bear in memory his answer, that *^the 
Secretary of the Navy and myself have come to the conclusion," 
etc.? A. I do not think the Secretary of War premised the 
statement with that. He handed me the decision and said, 
"This is the decision," or "■ This is my decision" — I am not cer- 
tain which ; but he handed me the paper, which of itself showed 
that it was the decision, or, what it purports to be, the decision 
of the Secretary of the Navy and himself. 

The Judge -Advocate — The accused's telegram shows that. 

There being no questions by the Court, the witness was ex- 
cused. 

The Presiden'T — Have the defence any more witnesses to 
present at this time ? 

Mr. Mackey — We might call Mr. Hudson, if the Court please. 

The Preside:n'T — The defence may proceed by calling Mr. 
Hudson as a witness. 

The Judge-Advocate — Before proceeding with the next 
witness for the defence, if the Court will permit I would like 
to submit a letter which I have just received from the defence. 
I will read it : 



120 THE HAZEN COUET-MARTIAL. 

' Couet-Martial Chambers, Ebbitt House, 
March 13, 1885. 
' ' In the matter of the trial of General W. B. Hazen. 
" Captain J. W. Clous, Judge- Advocate : 

"Please have summons issued for the following witness : Charles S. 
Sweet. 

" T. J. Mackey, 
"Counsel for General Hazen." 

I submit this application of the accused to the Court, unde 
the same circumstances that I submitted a like application to 
the Court this morning, and the remarks I then made I desire 
to apply to this case, without now repeating them and unneces- 
sarily taking up the time of the Court. 

Mr. Mackey — We invoke the same decision, may it please 
the Court, as was made this morning. The witness resides in 
the city and is a material witness. 

The Peesidei^t— The decision of this morning applies to 
this case. That will be the action. 

The Judge-Advocate— Very well ; the witness will then be 
summoned. 

I presume it is the purpose of the defence to go on with their 
witness, with the permission of the Court. 

The PEESiDEi^T — I presume so, after he has been sworn. 

Edmukd Hudson", a witness called by the defence, then 
came before the Court and was duly sworn by the Judge- Advo- 
cate. 

By Mr. Mackey : 

Q. Please state your name, your place of residence, and oc- 
cupation. A. Edmund Hudson ; I have so many occupations 
in connection with newspapers that I can hardly state, but I am 
editor of the Capital; residence, 134 Pennsylvania Avenue, S. 
E., Washington. 

Q. Please state whether you were the editor of the Capital 
on the first day of March, 1885. A. I was. 

Q. Is this a copy of the issue from, your office of that date, 
March 1, 1885 (handing a copy of the paper in question to the 
witness) ? A. Yes, sir, it is. 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 121 

The Judge-Advocate — I would like to ask the defence to 
state their purpose in the introduction of this paper. 

Mr. Mackey — It will be very rapidly developed, if the 
learned Judge-Advocate will wait. (To the witness :) Can you 
state who wrote that paragraph enclosed with blue lines ? I 
will read the paragraph to the Court, if there is no objection. 

The counsel read as follows : 

^^ From the Washington Capital of March 1, 1885, under the title of 'Sub 

Rosa.^ 

"I am told that General Hazeii has prepared a letter in which he under- 
takes to lay the whole responsibility of the failure to relieve the Greely ex- 
pedition in 1883 on Secretary Lincoln's shoulders. Efforts have been made 
to collect evidence to prove that another expedition might have been sent 
after the Proteus disaster in 1883. It is said that Secretaiy Lincoln's atten- 
tion has been called to the existence of this letter, and that it may not be 
published. I cannot believe the story that General Hazen asked for leave 
to go South on an inspection tour, intending to have the letter published 
in his absence, and not be here on the day when Secretary Lincoln shall 
take leave of the Department. I regret to hear that any such motive should 
have been attributed to him." 

(To the witness :) Did you write that ? 

The Judge- Advocate— Mr. President, I object to the intro- 
duction of any newspaper articles like that read by the defence 
just now, as immaterial and not relevant to the issues in this 
case. This case is to be tried upon the facts involved. What 
newspaper reports may have been written or composed by this 
witness or any other person have, so far as I can see, no rele- 
vancy to this case. While it is my earnest desire to assist the 
defence as much as possible in bringing out all the material 
facts in this case — in fact, I consider it my duty to do so — yet I 
cannot sit by here in the discharge of my duties and permit col- 
lateral and foreign matter to be dragged in here on this trial. 
There is no telling where it is going to end if we once commence 
to investigate th(} newspapers. There are thousands of them in 
this country, and many of them, perhaps, have written about 
these matters (I do not know whether they have or not), and I 
do not see what this Court has to do with any newspaper arti- 
cles published in the Capital, or in any other newspaper, in 



123 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

reference to tlie accused. Therefore I object to the introduction 
of this article. 

Mr. Mackey^ — May it please the Court, I regret to hear the 
authority of newspapers questioned by the learned Judge- Advo- 
cate. The gravest specification attached to these charges is 
based upon a newspaper paragraph, written not by the hand of 
the accused, and not charged to have been written by his hand. 
The purpose of introducing that is, first, to fix the authorship 
upon this witness as the assumed author. The main object or 
fact has not been disclosed. Second, to trace, by gradual and 
well-connected proof, this paragraph back to the source that 
inspired it. We propose to follow by a chain of well-connected 
links this paragraph, and the paragraph in the Chicago Tribune 
perhaps, and we propose following them to the door of the 
Secretary of War's chamber, follow them to his desk, follow 
them to his hand, and to show that the War Secretary who has 
charged an officer of the Army of the United States with a viola- 
tion of duty, or an alleged criticising of his action in the public 
prints, the seeking of a public forum to review official action — 
that the Secretary of War sat at his desk and coined libel like 
a mint ; that he inspired that paragraph. 

The Court has admitted the Chicago Tribune, a dispatch in 
which was the inducement that led the reporter of the Evening 
Star to question the accused. It appeared that the accused 
himself had been assailed, by whose hand he could not tell. 
We will show that it was by the hand of authority; that the 
hand that drew the charge and specifications against him for 
publishing was the hand that indited a publication first that 
touched his honor and conduct as a soldier. 

It may be suggested that such a great breach of official duty 
by the Secretary of War would not justify an officer of the Army, 
in retaliation or for the vindication of himself, to seek the 
public press and make that the vehicle of his thought. And I 
admit that. It would not justify him, even w^itli so great a 
wrong. For the Secretary of War is but for a day, and the 
officer of the Army is for all time, for he bears with him in part 
the honor of the Army, and he may safely appeal to the just 
judgment of his government in proper form against libels in- 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 123 

dited or inspired by the Secretary of War. It is nofc for justifi- 
cation, but it is for mitigation. 

Suppose — which I do not apprehend, but it is one of the 
safeguards that counsel sliould erect to prepare for the worst — 
suppose this Court should come to the conclusion, on weighing 
the evidence impartially (as it will weigh it impartially), that 
the accused has done the thing set forth in the specifications. 
This would be considered in mitigation ; and, as a safeguard, in 
mitigation we oifer it, not concediug that the accused has done 
what he is charged with having done, or performed any act vio- 
lative of the duty of an officer of the Army. But assuming that 
he had, we present this in mitigation, and by strong circum- 
stance we will go directly to the door of truth in this matter, 
and we will touch the Secretary of War with it ; we will reach 
him by the circumstances and the proof, we believe, may it please 
the Court. 

The Judge- Advocate — The defence is veering around the 
question by trying to prove the justificatiou of General Hazen 
in speaking to the reporter. In order to get around the third 
specification, the evidence sought to be elicited from this wit- 
ness is now offered for the purposes of mitigation. Mitigation 
of what ? There cannot be any mitigation when the matter has 
been established. They have denied it ; consequently they can- 
not justify it. 

Mr. Mackey — We are not justifying it. 

The Judge-Advocate— Consequently they cannot justify 
it. Seeing that that proposition would be ridiculous, they shift 
their ground very conveniently and say that this evidence was 
to be introduced in mitigation should the fact be established. 

In the first place, they have denied the fact — have strenu- 
ously denied it — and if they desire to justify General Hazen's 
action in talking to that reporter they should first admit that 
he did talk to him and did cause the publication. 

The first specification is, I presume, the one that this con- 
troversy refers to. I would like to say to the Court that no 
matter what may have been published by anybody, by the Sec- 
retary of AVar or his subordinates, that did not justify in the 
slightest degree the accused's seeking the journals of the public 



124 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

press for redress. If he had any evidence or any idea that the 
Secretary of War or any of his subordinates had assailed him in 
the papers, there was a channel open for him through which he 
could seek redress — a legitimate channel, a legitimate process — 
through his superiors in the Army. 

How could he right himself by appealing to the tribunal of 
the public press or to public opinion ? Had they any control of 
the question ? Not at all. If he believed himself aggrieved it 
was his duty to seek redress from his legitimate superior, to ap- 
peal to him respectfully. There is no evidence that he did so. 
Therefore I consider the introduction of these newspaper arti- 
cles as entirely immaterial to this cause. 

In the first place, I deny most emphatically that the Secre- 
tary of War himself had anything to do with any of these pub- 
lications. And admitting, for the purposes of the argument, 
that he had, would it have justified the accused in going to the 
Star reporter and seeking the columns of the 8tar to right him- 
self ? There is no authority in such a tribunal. Why did he 
not go to his legitimate superiors ? He wants to establish by 
these newspapers a provocation. An officer can have no provo- 
cation for disrespect to his superiors on account of any news- 
paper articles that may have been written about him. 

I still insist upon my objection, and leave the matter to the 
Court. 

Mr. Mackey — May it please the Court, the learned Judge- 
Advocate has argued the admissibility of this as justification. I 
distinctly disclaim that it was introduced to that end. The 
learned Judge-Advocate has recited that the accused sought the 
Star reporter, when the Star reporter testifies that he sought 
the accused. 

The allegation as to publication is not in the first specifica- 
tion, as stated by the learned Judge- Advocate, but in the third, 
which alleges that General Hazen did " intentionally make a 
statement, in answer to said newspaper reporter, with a view to 
its publication." The Court will recollect that the reporter tes- 
tified that the inducement to him to seek General Hazen was 
certain publications in Western newspapers, and one in the Chi- 
cago Tribune, and so on. Now, it enters into the matter of the 



THE IIAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 125 

charge against the accused that he did publish. Language, in- 
deed, has been imputed to him which was the language of the 
very publication that assailed him — language in the specifica- 
tion. And the purpose of this, as stated, is to show that the 
Secretary of War, who charges the alleged publication upon the 
accused, inspired the publication, indited it we hope to prove, 
but we proj)ose to prove certainly that he inspired the publica- 
tion that led to that interview — not conceding that the prisoner 
at the bar has performed any act in violation of the sixty-second 
Article of War, as charged, but presenting them so that, if per- 
chance this Court should hold the specifications establislied, it 
may consider any fact in mitigation if we trace that publication 
to the Secretary of War. 

The Judge- Advocate states that the Secretary of War did 
not do that. That is not evidence. I state my conviction that 
he did do it, and that is equally without the force of testimony. 

The PeesidekT: — What is understood to be the question ? 

Mr. Mackey — We understand the paper was offered in evi- 
dence. There was no objection to the admission of the paper, 
but when I came to the question as to who wrote that para- 
graph the objection was made. Then the paragraph was read 
by me. The Court cannot anticipate what the answer of this 
witness will be and rule it out. 

The Judge- Advocate — I object to the introduction of the 
paper and the article in it. 

The Pkesident — The Court will now be closed for the con- 
sideration of this question, and after the doors are reopened it 
will adjourn until to-morrow morning at eleven o'clock. 

The Court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the re- 
opening of the doors, the hour of three p.m. having arrived, the 
Court adjourned until to-morrow, Saturday, March 14, 1885, at 
eleven o'clock a.m. 



FOURTH DAY. 



Rooms of the General Oourt-Maetial, 

Ebbitt House. WASHii^GTo:^", D. C, 

Saturday, March 14, 1885, 11 a.m. 

The Judge- Advocate — I am dkected by the Court to an- 
nounce that the objection of the Judge-Advocate which was 
pending at the close of yesterday's session is sustained. 

The Judge-xIdyocate— I will now announce to the Court 
that the prosecution here rests. 

TESTIMONY FOE THE DEFENCE. 

Mr. Mackey — Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, the 
defence proposes to introduce so much of the report of the Sec- 
retary of War for the year 1884 — the annual report — as is em- 
braced in red lines, commencing on page 22 and ending on 
page 26. It may not be read now, but I desire to introduce it 
in evidence. It has been shown to the Judge- Advocate, and it 
is pei-tinent. 

The Judge- Advocate — I would ask the counsel for the ac- 
cused to be kind enougli to state the purpose in introducing it, 
so that I may offer any objections I may have. 

Mr. Mackey— One of the purposes for which it is intro- 
duced is in explanation of the meaning and intent of the para- 
graph cited in one of the specifications — in the first specification 
— from the annual report of the Chief Signal Officer, in which the 
Chief Signal Officer referred, in the opening of the letter which 
has been read to the Court, to certain harsh strictures made 
upon him by the Secretary of War. This is the portion of the 
annual report that relates to the Arctic work, and I propose to 
introduce in evidence all that the Secretary of War said in his 

126 



THE IIAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 127 

annual report. It covers four pages, and is in reference to liis 
connection with the Arctic work, his action and the obnoxious 
faction of the Chief Signal Officer. That is one of the purposes, 
and I presume that is sufficient to make it relevant. 

The Preside^tt — Has the Judge- Advocate anything to say- 
on the subject ? 

Tlie Judge- Advocate — For the purpose as just stated by 
the counsel, and for that purpose only, I have no objection to 
the admission of the document. 

Mr. Mackey— If the- Court desire to hear argument I am 
prepared to enter upon it, to show that we are entitled to use it 
for all relevant purposes in this case. You will find it useful for 
many purposes in this case far beyond that. Shall I read it ? 

The Peesidext — Wait a moment and we will see whether 
there is any necessity of proceeding in that direction further. 
(After consultation with the members of the Court : ) That 
paper will be admitted. 

Mr. Mackey — I will read so much of it as is necessary. 

The counsel read as follows : 

(This report is fully reviewed in the argument, and hence, to 
economize space, it is not given here. — T. J. M.) 

The Judge- Advocate — That document, the annual report 
of the Secretary of War for the year 1884, will be appended to 
the record and marked Exhibit F. 

Mr. Mackey — Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, 
the second specification and the third specification cite princi- 
pally a letter alleged to have been written by the Chief Signal 
Officer, the accused, addressed to the Secretary of War, on the 
17th day of February, 1885, and that letter has been read in 
evidence. 

It appears in the text of the letter that there were enclosed 
with the letter certain statements made by Arctic navigators, 
Chief-Engineer Melville and others, extracts from which appear 
in the letter itself. 

I now propose to introduce the documents to which the 
letter refers, and from which the extracts are made. I submit 
to the Court that it should be introduced as an entirety, be- 
cause these are the enclosures sent with the letter. 



128 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

The Peesidekt — What has the Judge- Advocate to say on 
that subject ? 

The Judge- Advocate — I have no objection, Mr. President, 
to admitting that twelve enclosures belong to this document 
that was introduced by the prosecution. I have no objection 
that those enclosures might accompany this letter for the pur- 
pose of showing that those twelve enclosures belong to the 
letter, but for no other purpose. 

Mr. Mackey — I propose reading these enclosures. They 
are intensely interesting. 

The Judge-Advocate — I do not wish it to be understood 
that I admit as true the papers submitted in every particular. I 
simply wish to admit that they are the enclosures that accom- 
pany that letter to the Secretary of War. 

The Peesidei^t — The Court will be cleared for the purpose 
of determining the question in closed session, after which there 
will be a recess of fifteen minutes. 

The Court was then cleared for deliberation. When the 
doors were reopened (a recess having been in the meantime 
taken), and the accused and his counsel had resumed their seats, 
the Judge-Advocate announced the decision of the Court as 
follows : 

The Judge-Advocate — I am directed by the Court to an- 
nounce as its decision that it decides to admit the enclosures. 

The PEESiDEi^TT — I would say to the counsel for the accused 
that it has been suggested that possibly if these papers were 
filed, to be used by the counsel when they come to the argu- 
ment, it might save the time of the Court which would be con- 
sumed in hearing them read now. 

Mr. Mackey — I will state to the Court that I can best pre- 
serve the proper order of the defence by reading them now, but 
will not read them again, and merely refer to them in passing. 
They are generally brief, with the exception of one of them. 

A member of the Court — I move that the papers be filed. 

The PEESiDEiq-T — ^Upon consultation the Court have directed 
that the exhibits be filed, and used hereafter as suggested by 
the counsel, but that they be not read now, so that the court 
may proceed without delay, believing it not to be material to 



THE IIAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 129 

a correct judgment of this case that they should be read at this 
time. 

Mr. Mackey — The Court does not, by its decision, prechide 
the reading at a later stage, however ? This is a dumb witness, 
that speaks only through counsel. 

The PRESiDEi^T — The Court thinks that the accused has a 
right to use these papers, but the Court does not desire at pre- 
sent to hear them read, because the progress of the case may be 
somewhat delayed thereby. The papers are before the Court, 
and can be used by the defence as other papers are used. The 
Court prefers that the reading of them should be deferred for 
the present. 

Mr. Mackey — May I be permitted to read them by their ti- 
tles, so as to identify them ? 

The Presidei«"t — There is no objection to the reading of the 
titles, I suppose. 

Mr. Mackey — I propose to file as an exhibit one of the enclo- 
sures in that letter of February 17, 1885, of the Chief Signal Officer 
of the Army to the honorable Secretary of War — a letter from 
Chief-Engineer George W. Melville, U. S. N., dated December 
5, 1884, and addressed to the Chief Signal Officer of the Army. 

(The paper referred to is appended to the record, marked 
Exhibit G.) 

Also a letter of December 10, 1884, from Lieutenant A. W. 
Greely, U. S. A., to the Chief Signal Officer of the Army. 
(Appended to the record, marked Exhibit H.) 

Also a letter of date Washington, D. C, December 19, 1884, 
from D. L. Brainard, Sergeant Signal Corps, addressed to the 
Chief Signal Officer of the Army. 

(Appended to the record, marked Exhibit I.) 

Also a letter, dated St. John's, JST. F., December 22, 1884, 
from T. iST. Molloy, United States Consul, addressed to the Chief 
Signal Officer of the Army, authenticating certified statements 
of sealing-captains therewith enclosed. 

(x^ppended to the record, marked Exhibit J.) 

Also a letter from Captain Eichard Pike, from St. John's, 



130 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

IN". ¥., or a statement of Captain Richard Pike, of St. John's, 
N. F., dated St. John's, N. F., December 18, 1884, addressed to 
the Chief Signal Officer of the Army. 

(Appended to the record, marked Exhibit K. ) 

Also a statement of Thomas White, Arctic navigator, of St. 
John's, N. F., of date December 20, 1884. 

(Appended to the record, marked Exhibit L. ) 

Also the statement of the Hon. John Syme, St. John's, N". F., 
certifying to the character and standing of certain parties as 
Arctic navigators, dated December 20, 1884. 

(Appended to the record, marked Exhibit M.) 

Also the statement of Samuel Walsh, ice-master and Arctic 
navigator, of St. John's, N. F., of date December 18, 1884. 
(Appended to the record, marked Exhibit N.) 

Also statement of William Carlson, ice-navigator, of St. 
John's, 'N. F., dated December 18, 1884. 

(Appended to the record, marked Exhibit 0.) 

Also a statement of Peter McPherson, ice-navigator and late 
chief -engineer steamer Proteus, dated December 20, 1884. 
(Appended to the record, marked Exhibit P.) 

Also tabulated statement in eight columns, showing the 
temperature Fahrenheit at Upernavik, Greenland, in latitude 
72° 47' K, and longitude W. 56°, in the winters of 1883 and 
1884. 

(Appended to the record, marked Exhibit Q.) 

Also letter of the Hon, John Syme, of St. John's, N. F., 
with reference to the same subject, of date December 22, 1884. 
(Appended to the record, marked Exhibit E.) 

Mr. Macket — The official annual report, may it please the 
Court, of the Chief Signal Officer of the Army for the year 
1884 has been introduced by the Judge-Advocate. I propose 
to present specially, and call the attention of the Court to, so 
mucli of that report as commences at the fifteenth line of page 
16, with the word *^up," and ends with the words ''the entire 
party saved," on page 19. The portions which have been marked 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 131 

on the original copy introduced contain the matter which was 
made the subject of the alleged harsh strictures embodied in 
the report of the Secretary of War for 1884, which I read 
just before the Court took a recess; and for that reason I beg 
leave to read so much of it, so that the order may be preserved 
in the regular sequence. This is the subject of the Secretary's 
strictures. It is not very long. 

The counsel then read as follows : 

"Up to the return of the expedition this year I had hoped there would 
be no occasion for raising the question of blame at this or any future time. 
But new light has been cast upon the subject, and with it my duty becomes 
plain, and the truth of history, and justice to all, call for such impartial in- 
quiry and authoritative judgment as a tribunal broad enough to embrace 
the whole question shall institute and pronounce, and the Congress of the 
United States is manifestly such tribunal. 

" The International Polar Expedition was organized and set in motion 
by the direct order of the President of the United States, pursuant to the au- 
thority vested in him by an Act of Congress. Its progress and achievements 
have commanded the attention and challenged the admiration of foreign 
countries, and reflected new lustre upon our own. 

*' The magnitude of those achievements has only been paralleled by the 
disaster in which it terminated. That such disaster could have been avert- 
ed, and that it was in no respect due to the commander of that expedition, 
can be established by indubitable evidence. The causes that co-operated to 
produce a tragedy tliat has appalled the civilized world, and the responsi- 
bility for such dire result, can be traced with certainty. 

" I therefore trust that tliis whole matter of the Lady Franklin Bay 
Expedition, and the expeditions organized for its relief, will be deemed 
worthy of a thorough investigation by Congress — a body that will perform 
its duty and stand above the suspicion of being swayed by partisan consid- 
erations. 

" This expedition will stand among the foremost of its kind. It car- 
ried its work further north than any other. It gained detailed geographi- 
cal knowledge of greater breadth in that region than any other. It brought 
back more complete data upon physical problems than any other. It dis- 
pelled the myths and superstitions of Arctic living, and completed in a 
masterly way all the services it was sent to do, in the exact manner as it 
was arranged, having made a clear addition to the sura of human know- 
ledge, and returned to the place of rendezvous intact and perfect, and it is 
proper that the fault of failure afterwards be fully understood. Both Lieu- 
tenant Greely in the Arctic, and the Signal Bureau in Washington, car- 
ried out their parts of the prearranged plan of rescue literally and success- 
fully in every particular. This plan seemed to be a good one, and Lieuten- 



132 THE HAZEN COURT- MAETIAL. 

ant Greely reiterated it after reaching his station and seeing what he wanted, 
and it proved to be good. 

" The sinking of the Proteus, which terminated this success, which to 
that time was complete and faultless, was an accident for which there may 
or may not have been blame. But means to substantially restore the losses 
so incurred had been provided and were at hand. The Proteus was the best 
ship with the best captain for the purpose to be had, both being the same 
employed by Lieutenant Greely in 1881, and she was very perfectly supplied 
and well equipped. She was sent at the exact season then believed to be 
the best for the fullest chances of success, and she was accustomed to Arctic 
navigation. But when she sank the full responsibility for what followed 
rested with those on the spot, and it becojnes necessary, in the fuller lights, 
to discuss it, that censure may not be misplaced. Besides the duty that nec- 
essarily reposed in the commander present, Lieutenant Garlington's orders 
read : ' A ship of the United States Navy, the Yantic, will accompany you 
as far as Littleton Island, rendering you such aid as may become necessary 
and as may be determined by the captain of that ship and yourself when 
on the spot.' This was all any commander so situated, imbued with a just 
appreciation of his duties and responsibilities, could wish. 

"Lieutenant Garlington failed, when at Cape Sabine, July 23, to re- 
place the spoiled parts of the cache of food previously left at Cape Sabine, 
as he was ordered in his instructions to do. Lieutenant Greely says of this 
in a letter written by him for the Chief Signal Officer, April 30, supposing 
himself at the point of death : 'Had Lieutenant Garlington carried out your 
orders and replaced the two hundred and forty rations rum and one hundred 
and twenty alcohol in English cache here, and the two hundred and ten 
pounds mouldy English bread, spoiled English chocolate and potatoes, 
melted sugar, and the two hundred and ten pounds rotten dog-biscuit, we 
would, without doubt, be saved.' Lieutenant Garlington saved from the 
wreck about twenty-one hundred rations — ^they being but a part of those put 
upon the ice and could have been saved — which he landed at Cape Sabine. 
These rations for Lieutenant Greely's party were priceless ; they were worth 
many human lives. Of these rations he left for them about one-fourth part, 
and of this but about one hundred and fifty pounds of meat, taking the re- 
mainder away in his boats for his own use — seeming only to limit the 
quantity taken by the capacity of his boats, when his men were strong and 
well, in the summer season, had suffered no hardships, were abundantly 
supplied with guns and ammunition, in a region full of game and walrus, 
in the neighborhood of the friendly Esquimaux, and with their faces set 
towards plenty. A proper appreciation of a sacred duty and of his obli- 
gations to his trust and to Lieutenant Greely would have shown him that 
two-tliirds of these stores ought to have been left, and had this been done 
Lieutenant Greely says his party ' would all have been saved.' With one- 
third of the rations taken away and other resources at hand, the retreating 
party would have been reasonably safe. Besides, the food improvidently 



THE IIAZEN" COURT-MAETIAL. 133 

used and wasted — used for fuel, used to feed to repletion a dog, and left to 
waste in his camps — would have saved human lives ... at Camp Clay. 

"On reaching Littleton Island it was found that its shores wepe lite- 
rally lined with walrus, while there were in the hands of the party lifteen 
guns and some four or five thousand rounds of ammunition — a better sup- 
ply than any expedition ever before had in those regions. 

"There is scarcely any room for doubt that in a few days the party 
could have killed and packed in the snow, as is often done with fresh meat 
in Dakota, walrus-meat enough, with stores in caches in the vicinity and 
saved from the Proteus, to have supplied the combined party of Lieutenants 
Garlington and Greely a wholesome and abundant ration for a year. 

" Lieutenant Ray says tliat at Point Barrow, under like circumstances, 
his party killed walrus enough in one day to have supplied his party a year. 

"Lieutenant Garlington reports that he left Littleton Island with his 
party for the south for the purpose of finding the escort ship and returning 
with it with supplies for Lieutenant Greely. But when he did reach' it, 
only three days' steaming away from Littleton Island, he made no demand 
to her captain for her return, while she had on board, as also had Governor 
Elborg at Upernavik, ample food available for this purpose. 

"The order of the Secretary of the Navy to the captain of the escort 
ship gave him latitude to remain at Littleton Island until near tlie close of 
the season, about September 30; yet, with a full knowledge of the distressing 
condition Lieutenant Greely would find himself in, and the whole plan of 
his rescue being familiar to him, he turned southward at once, a month 
earlier than required by the season, leaving nothing for Lieutenant Greely, 
and so intent was he to get south that he appears to have had the intention 
of leaving Lieutenant Garlington's party behind, if not found in his path. 
The tone of this officer's utterances upon these subjects has impressed me 
with a want of efficient effort or intent on his part to perform his duties, 
disqualifying him for their loyal performance. 

" No language could be more just, aiid yet more severe, than that ad- 
dressed by the Secretary of the Navy to Commander Wildes after that 
officer had written a supplementary report to justify his conduct. I beg 
leave to cite the letter of the Secretary of the Navy as follows : 

" * Navy Department, Washington, 
November 2, 1883. 

" 'The receipt of your letter of October 16 is acknowledged. In the 
present aspect of the case the Department condemns (1) the agreement en- 
closed in your letter of June 25 between Lieutenant Garlington and yourself 
contemplating the separation of the Yantic and the Proteus until August 
25; (2") your failure to accompany the P;*o/e?<s from Disco Island after you 
had there rejomed her; (3) your unnecessary visit to Upernavik on July 25 to 
inquire of the Danish authorities how the ice was probably moving between 
yourself and the Proteus, the six days of your delay at which point would 



134 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

have brought you to Littleton Island before the party of the Proteus went 
south; and (4) your failure, when you found at Littleton Island that the de- 
moralized party of the Proteus had gone south in search of the Swedish 
steamer Sofia at Cape York, to land materials for a habitation, clothing, 
and some food for the forgotten Greely party. What action, if any, will be 
taken by the Department has not yet been determined. 
" ' Very respectfully, 

" ' Wm. E. Chandler, 

'' 'Secretary of the Navy. 
" * Commander Frank Wildes, U. S. Navy, 

" * Commander U. S. S. Yantic, Navy Yard, New York.* 

*'0n the return of the escort ship, bringing the relief party to St. 
John's, September 13, there was still time, as known from previous experi- 
ence and shown by subsequent facts, to send effective relief, and my six 
telegrams from Washington Territory, where I then happened to be, attest 
the earnestness of my efforts to have this done. Besides this, Caj)tain Mel- 
ville and others volunteered to go, giving their full plans for the relief. 

"There is scarcely a doubt, had anyone of these five means I have 
pointed out been availed of, the untold sufferings at Camp Clay last winter 
would have been prevented and the entire party saved." 

Mr. Mackey — I would like to inquire of the Judge-Advo- 
cate whether the printed slip included in the report I have been 
reading from is in the copy of the report already put in evi- 
dence ? 

The Judge- Advocate — The slip is in the copy introduced 
in evidence as Exhibit A. 

Mr. Mackey — As it only occupies a few lines, I will read it. 

The counsel read as follows : 

NOTE TO CHAPTER ON ARCTIC WORK. 

"At no time after reaching Cape Sabine could Lieutenant Greely's 
party have crossed Smith Sound to Littleton Island. While his men 
were strong, the current was so swift and so filled with masses of drifting 
ice that there was not the slightest prospect of success, and any attempt 
could only have ended in drifting helplessly on some ice-floe— a condition 
from which, after thirty days, the party had just been rescued. 

"At Carey Islands, directly in Lieutenant Garlington's path, one hun- 
dred miles south of Cape Sabine, there were eighteen hundred rations in the 
ISTares cache in good condition, which he had inspected but six days pre- 
viously. This made it unnecessary to take from Cape Sabine of Lieuten- 
ant Greely's stores more than four days' rations for his own party. This 
would have left for Lieutenant Greely at Cape Sabine nineteen hundred 
rations, and placed his safety beyond question." 



THE IIAZEN COURT-MAKTIAL. 135 

We propose now to introduce in evidence the six telegrams 
from Washington Territory that form an integral part of the 
narrative. They are referred to in the annual report, and they 
serve at least to reflect the purpose and temper of the accused 
in reference to the matter. It will be proper for me to state 
that if the Judge- Advocate pleases to require it and demands 
strict proof, I must summon a witness from the Signal Office, 
the Acting Chief Signal Officer, to authenticate those telegrams, 
if it is desired. 

The Judge-Advocate — Do I understand you to say that 
those telegrams are a part and parcel of the report of the Chief 
Signal Officer as introduced here ? 

Mr. Mackey — They are referred to here. 

The Judge-Advocate — But do I understand you to say 
that those telegrams are a part and parcel of the report of 
the Chief Signal Officer as introduced here ? Were they ex- 
hibits ? 

Mr. Mackey — No, sir ; they are not exhibits. 

The Judge-Advocate— Then I object to their introduction, 
as foreign matter. They were not part and parcel of the Chief 
Signal Officer's report for 1884, and it is presenting a new issue 
with which we have nothing to do. The Secretary of War had, 
perhaps, that matter in consideration, and the accused in his 
annual report as quoted in the first specification ; from the lan- 
guage stated there it would appear that the Secretary of War 
had all this before him then. The matter is adjudicated, and 
this Court has nothing to do with it. It is a foreign issue ; a 
collateral matter. If you once open the door to matters of that 
character there is no telling where it will end. I do not sup- 
pose, Mr. President, that it has anything to do with any of the 
allegations before this Court. 

Mr. Mackey — I think there is, may it please the Court, a 
telling where this will end. I beg leave to submit to the con- 
sideration of the Court that the learned Judge-Advocate himself 
presented a telegram, authenticating it by the testimony of Cap- 
tain Mills, the Acting Chief Signal Officer, responding to these 
very telegrams, in response to these six telegrams. It would be 
a singular view of the law of evidence if, in the connected nar- 



136 THE HAZEl^ COURT-MAETIAL. 

ratiye of a transaction, the record of the events that transpired 
in the matter of the sending of a relief expedition in the autumn 
of 1883, the heroic operation should be performed of amputat- 
ing that in the centre, or, as it were, at the hip-joint, and that 
the Court should admit the telegram sent by the Acting Chief 
Signal Officer in response to these telegrams that I propose to 
offer in evidence, and not to admit in evidence the telegrams to 
which that was a reply. 

These telegrams serve to fix the relations of the Chief Signal 
Officer to the question of dispatching a relief expedition in De- 
cember, 1883, and reflect his purpose and intent. They are not 
an assault upon the Honorable Secretary of War — not to that 
end. They fix his status there, and the Judge-Advocate has 
not stated any reason for his objection, except that there is 
no telling where this will end if the telegrams are intro- 
duced. 

Well, if they are to be so potential as that in one direction 
or another, if they are to press upon the balance-wheels of the 
case at all as material evidence, that is a reason why they should 
be admitted. It is not argued that they are not material. The 
response to them is evidence in the Court. We ask, in order 
that that response may be fully understood, that these may be 
read. These are telegrams — one of them requesting that the 
matter shall be laid before the President of the United States 
and the Secretary of W^ar. 

The Judge-Advocate — I clearly and plainly object to the 
telegrams as being immaterial and foreign to the issue before 
the Court. The telegram sent by Captain Mills to General Ha- 
zen was introduced by me for the purpose of showing simply 
that the Chief Signal Officer had information of the decision of 
the Secretary of War not to send a relief expedition in Septem- 
ber, 1883, and for no other purpose, as is set forth in the first 
and second specifications. 

A member of the Court (to the Judge-Advocate) — Is there 
any reference in the telegram that has been introduced in evi- 
dence to telegrams received from General Hazen? 

The Judge- Advocate — The telegram introduced in Captain 
Mills' testimony reads as follows: 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 187 

''September 19, 1883. 

To General W. B. Hazen, Port Townsend, W. T. : 

" Secretaries War and Navy, after patient consultation with Arctic ex- 
plorers, conclude nothing further possible this year. No chance to put ves- 
sel sufficiently north to reach Greely either by boat or sledge. 

"(Signed) Mills." 

Mr. Macket — I will state that I only wish to file these tele- 
grams, and not to read them. 

The Judge- Advocate — I have objected to them. 

The President — The question is on their admission. They 
would be in evidence if they were filed. 

A member of tbe Court — Was there a question asked the wit- 
ness yesterday in regard to that telegram, whether these were 
received in answer to Captain Mills' telegram ? 

The Judge-Advocate — The record of the testimony shows 
that the following question was asked : 

"By the Court : 

" Q. For what reason was the dispatch sent? A. Because of this de- 
cision." 

Nothing is referred to concerning telegrams received by him, so 
far as I can see, in the testimony. 

Mr. Mackey — This was a part of the correspondence by 
telegraph between the Acting Chief Signal Officer and the Chief 
Signal Officer in relation to the expedition itself. It enters into 
the history of the proposed expedition in the fall of 1883. 

The Presiden^t — The question is whether these telegrams 
shall be received in evidence, or whether the objection of the 
Judge- Advocate shall be sustained. A vote will be taken by 
ballot, unless some member desires the court-room to be cleared. 

A vote was then taken by ballot. 

The Judge- Advocate — I am directed by the Court to an- 
nounce as its decision that the objection of the Judge-Advocate 
is sustained. 

I desire to announce to the defence that Mr. Kauffmann, the 
witness summoned for the defence, is now present. 

Mr. Mackey — Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, 
the ruling of the Court which excludes the offered testimony 



138 THE IIAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

on the part of the accused to trace newspaper paragraplis assail- 
ing him to the Secretary of War, requires us to state, that we 
dispense with the further attendance of Mr. KaufEmann. 

The Peesidekt — The witness is discharged. 

Mr. Mackey — Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, 
the defence has some further documentary eyidence to intro- 
duce which is not at hand immediately, but we will present it 
at the hour of the opening of the Court on Monday. It is now 
half -past two o'clock, and I ask that indulgence. 

The Peesidekt— Is there any objection to the adjournment 
of the Court until eleven o'clock on Monday morning ? 

The President — The Court will now adjourn until eleven 
o'clock Monday morning. 



FIFTH DAY. 



Rooms of the Gen-eral Couet-Martial, 

Ebbitt House, Washi:n^gtok, D. C, 

Monday, March 16, 1885, 11 A.M. 

The Court met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. Mackey — Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, 
I propose to submit in evidence, on behalf of the accused, two 
certain telegrams. The counsel for tlie defence is too well 
aware of his duty to the Court to persist in offering in evi- 
dence matter that has been excluded by the former ruling of 
the Court. But when the telegrams were offered on Saturday 
— a series of telegrams — the attention of counsel had not been 
called to the fact that they had in their possession two telegrams 
addressed by the Chief Signal OfiBcer of the Army to the Act- 
ing Chief Signal Officer, Captain Mills, after the date of the 
telegram of the 19th which was in evidence. 

These two telegrams will distinctly disclose to the Court that 
Captain Mills' telegram was not received in Washington Terri- 
tory by the Chief Signal Officer on the 19th or on the 20th or 
the 21st or the 22d. Whatever the proof may be, or whatever 
the admissions may be, as to the knowledge of the accused that 
the Secretaries of the Navy and of War did render a decision in 
the premises, we submit to the Court that these two telegrams, 
that are Department records — official records coming from the 
accused to Captain Mills after the telegram of the 19tli sent by 
Captain Mills, which has been admitted — are evidence in the 
case. They serve to interpret the mind of the accused, and 
whatever serves to reflect light upon his intent is admissible. 

It is certainly clear that the accused can state, when on the 
witness-stand, that he did send telegrams of this purport. It 



140 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

would be impossible to exclude that. It is a legitimate part of 
the evidence. 

Therefore it is submitted respectfully to the Court that as 
the telegrams are better evidence than the statement of the ac- 
cused, his memory of them, they should be admitted as a part 
of the narrative which has been entered upon by the prosecu- 
tion exhibiting a telegram from Captain Mills of the 19th, and 
these are telegrams of the 21st and 22d from the Chief Signal 
Officer to Captain Mills in regard to the same subject-matter. 

We submit to the Court that they are relevant to the case, 
and respectfully ask that they be placed on file. The Court 
may examine them. I will hand them uj) for examination be- 
fore approval. 

The counsel then handed the telegrams in question to the 
President of the Court for insj)ection. 

The Judge-Advocate — Mr. President, before the papers 
are submitted to the Court I beg leave to state that I have a 
right to know their purport, their tenor, and now be permitted 
to examine them before the Court takes any action, so that I 
may respectfully enter my protest to their reception. At pre- 
sent I am unable to say anything on the subject, because I do 
not know what they are. 

The Peesidekt (to the counsel for the accused) — You will 
let the Judge-Advocate see them. 

The counsel handed the papers in question to the Judge- 
Advocate for his inspection. 

The Judge-Advocate — Having examined these telegrams, 
Mr. President, I have come to the conclusion that I must enter 
my protest against their reception. They form no part or par- 
cel of the inquiry necessary by this Court into the allegations 
against the accused. 

These papers refer to the decision of the Secretaries of War 
and the Navy in reference to sending out another relief expedi- 
tion for Lieutenant Greely, or rather to the merits of that ques- 
tion. That question liaving been decided upon by the Sec- 
retaries of War and the Navy in the legitimate exercise of their 
duties, the matter has become res adjudicata, and is not now 
a matter for this Court or the accused to inquire into. This 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 141 

Court is not now sitting to try the propriety of the decision of 
the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy not to send 
a relief expedition for Lieutenant Greely in September, 1883. 
And these papers now introduced are calculated to open the 
door of an investigation into the propriety of the conduct of 
the Secretary of "War and of the Navy. This matter was de- 
cided by those two gentlemen, and is not now one open for dis- 
cussion before this Court in connection with the allegations 
against the accused, and I therefore object to the introduction 
of these documents. 

Mr. Mackey — Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, 
I have probably handed to the Judge-Advocate the wrong 
papers. (After an examination of the papers : ) May it please 
the Court, these are the right papers with the wrong construc- 
tion. These are the papers. 

The counsel then handed the papers in question to the Court 
for its inspection. 

The Judge-Advocate — Mr. President, in order to settle 
that question, and that the Court might be able intelligently to 
decide upon the matter, I will state that I have no objection 
to the Court's knowing the purport of these telegrams or their 
tenor. How can the Court decide unless it does know ? 

The Presidei^t — I think they might be read. 

Mr. Mackey — It would do no harm. 

The Preside:n't — Not read to go into the record, but read 
for the Court's information. 

The papers referred to were then read for the information of 
the Court by the counsel for the accused, but, by direction of 
the President, not made a part of the record. 

Mr. Mackey — I will state that we ofiPer three — two from 
General Hazen and one from Captain Mills. I think they are 
manifestly admissible. 

The Judge- Advocate — Before going further I desire to 
call the attention of the Court to the dates of these telegrams. 
The Court has in evidence before it a telegram from Captain 
Mills dated the 19th of September, 1883, in which Captain 
Mills informed the Chief Signal Officer, then at New Tacoma, 
Washington Territory, that the Secretary of War and the Sec- 



142 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

retary of the Navy had decided not to send a relief expedition 
for Lieutenant Greely in September, 1883. These telegrams 
are dated, respectively, one the 21st and the other two the 22d 
of September, which is after tiie decision of the Secretary of 
War and the Secretary of the Navy had been communicated to 
General Hazen that his recommendation for another Arctic ex- 
pedition was not concurred in. 

Th^se telegrams have been read to the Court. It is evident 
they relate to the very self-same subject — to the subject of 
sending out another relief party after Lieutenant Greely. As I 
said before, the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy 
having decided that subject several days before these telegrams 
were sent, it did not become the accused to seek new evidence 
in other efforts or to lay any foundation to find fault or quar- 
rel with a decision made by his superior in the legitimate dis- 
charge of his duties. I say, therefore, that the introduction of 
these telegrams is for no other purpose than to call in question 
the propriety of the official action of the Secretary of War and 
the Secretary of the Navy on September 19, 1883, and hence, 
as the Court has nothing to do Avith that question, in my 
opinion, it is my duty as Judge-Advocate to enter my respect- 
ful protest against their reception. 

Mr. Mackey — These, may it please the Court, we submit 
because they were sent after Captain Mills' telegram of Sep- 
tember 19. We think they ought to be admitted for the very 
reason that the learned Judge-Advocate holds that they ought 
to be excluded ; and we will establish by proof that these tele- 
grams of the 21st and 22d, sent by General Hazen, were sent 
before Captain Mills' telegram of the 19th was received, and 
hence do not bear the construction that the Chief Signal Officer 
intended them as strictures upon the conduct of the Secretaries 
of War and of the Navy. And the accused will be requested, 
and he has an absolute right, absolute, supreme right, to give 
his narrative, and he will embrace in that narrative the matter 
that led to them, always, however, within the ruling of the 
Court with reference to what has been decided. And we sub- 
mit the telegram of Captain Mills ; I understand that no objec- 
tion is made to that ? 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAllTIAL. 143 

The Judge- Advocate — I object to the whole subject — not 
only to one, but to the entire subject I object. 

Mr. Mackey — It would be curious indeed that the tele- 
gram of record of the Acting Chief Signal Officer, announcing 
that Lieutenant Garlington and Commander "Wildes had ad- 
vised against the expedition, and that it was impracticable to 
reach Cape Sabine — that it should not be admitted, may it 
please the Court. I would suggest to the Court that these tele- 
grams must necessarily, being offered, enter into the record ; for 
if the Court rules that they are not to be considered, it may be 
still important to the reviewing authority that what was ex- 
cluded, as well as what was admitted, should appear in the re- 
cord. 

The Judge-Advocate — I can conceive of no possible ne- 
cessity on my part to submit any testimony from Lieutenant 
Garlington or Commander Wildes to bolster up or justify any 
decision that the Secretary of War may have made in the dis- 
charge of his duties. That is not my duty. That decision 
stands by itself, and is not now here to be assailed, and I am not 
required even to bring documents here to justify the wisdom of 
that decision. That is not my duty. The matter has been ad- 
judicated and was settled long ago. 

Upon motion the Court then retired to an adjoining room 
for consultation with closed doors, no one being present but the 
members of the Court and the Judge-Advocate. 

After deliberation the members of tlic Court and the Judge- 
Advocate returned to the court-room, and the Judge- Advocate 
was directed to announce the decision of the Court as follows : 

The Judge-Advocate — I am directed to announce as the 
decision of the Court that the objection of the Judge- Advocate 
is sustained. 

Mr. Mackey — Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, 
the accused, Brigadier-General William B. Hazen, Chief Signal 
Officer of the Army, will now testify. 

Brigadier-General William B. Hazen, the accused, then 
came before the Court as a witness, and was duly sworn by the 
Judge-Advocate. 



144 * THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

By Mr. Macket : 

Q. Will you please state your rank in the Army of the 
United States ? A. I am. a Brigadier-General in the Army 
of the United States, and Chief Signal Officer of the Army. 

Q. How long have you served as an officer in the Army of 
the United States ? A. Since 1855. 

Q. Did you hold any command in the late war ? If so, state 
what it was. A. I held in 1861 the rank of colonel of volun- 
teers. Beginning in 1862, I was a brigade commander until 
1864, when I was division commander until near the close of 
the war, when I was a corps commander. 

Q. What corps did you command ? A. The Fifteenth Army 
Corps. 

Q. Over what period of time did your service in the Army of 
the United States extend ? A. Including my cadetship, oyer a 
period of thirty-three years. 

Q. Were you ever before arraigned before a court- martial ? 
A. No. 

Q. I shall not ask whether you desire to be again. What 
was the date of your commission as Chief Signal Officer ? A. I 
was appointed on the 6th day of December, 1880. 

Q. By whom ? A. By President Hayes. 

Q. Please state under what authority the Lady Franklin Bay 
Arctic Expedition, and by whom, was set in motion. 

The Judge- Ad YOG ATE — Wait one moment. I simply call 
attention to the fact that we have already had a chapter on the 
International Polar Expedition in the reading of General Ha- 
zen's report, and it would take up the time of the Court to go 
into that subject again verbally while it is already on record. 

Mr. Macket — The question of time has often been urged 
upon the Court, Mr. President. But there is something more 
valuable than time in this case — the character of an honorable 
officer of the Army of the United States, and justice itself. If 
this cannot be answered, when and where shall the seal of si- 
lence be taken from the lips of the witness ? 

It is eminently material, Mr. President, as to who set this 
expedition in motion. At the proper time I shall exhibit the 
statute by authority of wliich it was set in motion, and we will 



THE HAZET^ COURT-MARTIAL. 145 

proceed to show that the alleged decision of the Secretary of 
War was, as to a matter made by public statute, beyond his 
jurisdiction. This goes to the very vital point in the case — 
whether the Secretary of War had rendered a decision upon a 
question within his jurisdiction — without admitting in any de- 
gree any act of impropriety on the part of the Chief Signal 
Officer of the Army or assailing the decision. 

It is pertinent to ask the accused by what authority the 
Arctic expedition was set in motion. It is stalled in the an- 
nual report of the *Ghief Signal Officer for the year 1884 that 
it was set in motion by the President of the United States. 
That may leave the inference, however, that the President of 
the United States had set it in motion through the Secretary of 
War. The purpose is to show that the President of the United 
States, in compliance with the authority vested in him by Con- 
gress, set it in motion by an executive order signed by his own 
hand and not transmitted through the Secretary of War ; that 
one President directed its organization and another appointed 
its commanding officer by an executive order, and that ,on this 
field the Secretary of War was an intruder, save and except to 
disburse the funds upon the requisition of the Chief Signal 
Officer of the Army. When it was to start was not to be de- 
termined by him. Where it was to sail he was not to decide. 

Thus the Court perceive it is eminently pertinent ; and if the 
objection of the Judge- Advocate prevails, then the witness must 
be silent and let the law speak for him. But I do not appre- 
hend that. 

May it please the Court, it is respectfully submitted that a 
most liberal construction is to be given to the rules of evidence 
in a case of this character, and it is the settled practice of the 
civil courts, whose rules of practice are mandatory here, that 
where counsel declare it is material to have a certain matter ad- 
mitted, it is admitted. If counsel fail to connect it by what 
would seem a natural or reasonable relation to the issue before 
the Court, the Court may not consider it in its final judgment. 

We are dealing, Mr. President, not with a jury, but with a 
tribunal of judges, and with something more than a tribunal of 
judges — with a tribunal of judges each of whom has written his 



146 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. ' 

honorable page upon the annals of the country. And we are 
dealing with the character of an officer of the Army of the 
United States ; and we offer this evidence to show that, being 
here charged with conduct to the prejudice of good order and 
military discipline, and it being specified in each of the three 
specifications that the Secretary of War did render a decision 
in the performance of his official duty — we offer this on the line 
of proof that the Secretary of War had no duty in the premises ; 
that, npon the record as it stands, he did not have a duty to 
perform, and that he was an intruder. We submit it to that 
end, and we will follow at the proper time by the statutes. 

But the understanding of the accused of his relation to this 
subject can surely be unfolded. Suppose that the Chief Signal 
Officer of the Army was sincerely convinced, upon his natural 
and reasonable construction of the statutes and of his orders, 
that the Secretary of War had no jurisdiction in the premises ? 
Suppose that were so ? Even if it were not so in fact, if that 
was the consideration that influenced the judgment of the ac- 
cused in presenting a respectful protest against the action of the 
Secretary of War, then it is a material fact in the case ; and if 
we go further and show, as a matter of law, that he had no 
jurisdiction, it ends the case. We submit those points. 

The Judge-Advocate — I am glad that the counsel has 
finally disclosed the fact that he intends to assail the deci- 
sion of the Secretary of War in the premises as set out in the 
different specifications. Having done so, I enter my objection 
now against any further inquiry into the International Polar 
Expedition, its inception, or anything connected with it prior 
to this decision, because I do not believe it has anything to do 
with tliis case. I therefore respectfully object to the question 
asked. We are not trying the Secretary of War just now, but 
we are trying an issue between the United States and this offi- 
cer for criticising the Secretary of War in the matter. 

A member of the Court — I would like to have the pending 
question read. 

The reporter read the question as follows : 

Q. Please state under what authority the Lady Franklin Bay 
Arctic Expedition, and by whom, was set in motion. 



THE IIAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 147 

The President — The question is, Shall the objection of the 
Judge- Advocate to this question be sustained ? A vote will be 
taken by ballot, unless some member of the Court desires the 
court clcai'ed. 

A vote was then taken by ballot. 

The Judge-Advocate — I am directed by the Court to an- 
nounce as its decision that the objection of the Judge- Advo- 
cate is sustained. 

Mr. Mackey — 1 am not permitted, then, to bring out the 
fact that the President of the United States ordered this expe- 
dition, I understand ? (To the witness :) Did you ever, upon 
any occasion, knowingly fail in respect to the Secretary of War 
or any of your superior officers ? 

The Judge- Advocate — Please repeat that. I did not hear 
it. 

Mr. Mackey (to witness) — Did you ever, on any occasion 
in the course of your military career, knowingly fail to render 
due respect to any of your superior officers ? 

The Judge- Advocate — I do not like to rise so often and 
object, but tliis question is making the accused the judge and 
the jury. The question is now here being tried whether he ever 
knowingly, knowing certain things, criticised or failed to pay 
proper respect to the Secretary of War. It is for this Court to 
decide. This question makes the accused the judge on that 
subject. I shall have to object to the question. 

Mr. Mackey — Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, 
the question is, ^^Have you ever knowingly failed, during your 
military career, to render due respect to your superior military 
officer ? " The question is upon that line which is always open 
to an accused to throw his character into the scale — his record. 
It is objected to. We expect every matter to be objected to 
which is essential to this prosecution. 

May it please the Court, this case presents many novelties, 
and not the least is this character of objection. The accused 
has been placed at great disadvantage in presenting his defence, 
by reason of the fact that the accuser has not met him face to 
face, that the accuser shrinks from the face of the accused. In 
addition to that, may it please the Court, a liberal construction 



148 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

should be given to the right of the accused to testify. The 
Court weighs his testimony or statement for what it is worth. 
What better reinforcement can he give his statement against a 
charge that touches his soldierly character in the matter of al- 
leged disrespect to a superior officer, than to be allowed to an- 
swer the question whether, in the course of a military career 
extending over thirty-three years, he ever knowingly failed in 
rendering due respect to his superior officer ? 

A member of the Court — Is that word ^^ knowingly" in the 
question ? 

Mr. Mackey — Yes, sir ; *^ knowingly " — ^' knowingly fail- 
ed." No man, may it please the Court, is guilty unless he is 
guilty in intent, in the mind ; and that is the question. The 
accused here has thrown against him the great weight of the 
War Office, the great weight of a name once honored by an 
illustrious citizen. A Secretary of War who frames the charges 
is the accuser, and shall the shroud of iron still close in upon the 
accused and his lips be sealed that he cannot throw his char- 
acter into the scale ? Why, may it please the Court, we have a 
right to summon any reasonable number of witnesses to establish 
what I ask of the accused. And if we can establish it by the 
testimony of another, we can establish it by his own testimony. 
We do not please to bring up witnesses to his character, for that 
forms a part of the honorable annals of the country. But we 
ask him this question to explore his own mind, and say, upon a 
charge of knowingly acting with disrespect to the Secretary of 
War, whether he ever knowingly failed to render due respect to 
his superior officer of any grade. That is the question. 

The Judge- Advocate— I leave it to the Court, Mr. Presi- 
dent. 

The Pkesidekt — We will take a vote on the matter. The 
question is, Shall the objection of the Judge- Advocate be sus- 
tained ? 

A vote was then taken by ballot. 

The Judge-Advocate — I am directed by the Court to an- 
nounce as its decision that the objection of the Judge- Advocate 
is not sustained. 

Mr. Mackey (to the witness) — During your entire military 



THE HAZEIT COUET-MARTIAL. 149 

career have yon ever knowingly failed to render due respect to 
the person and the orders of your superior officer ? A. Never. 

Q. For Avhat period during your administration of the Signal 
Bureau was the accuser in this case, Mr. Robert T. Lincoln, 
Secretary of War — for about what period ? A. For all of the 
period, during four years, excepting a few months, four or five 
months, at the beginning, and a few days of the last of the 
period. 

Q. State whether you had frequent occasion to address the 
Secretary of War directly, and whether you did address him as 
to matters affecting :your bureau. A. Very frequently during 
the entire time. 

Q. Very frequently ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you ever have occasion to address him as to a de- 
cision already made upon a question, or as to his views stated 
upon a question, regarding the administration of your bureau ? 
A. I think I have. I do not remember any particular cases. 

Q. I can refresh your memory. As to the matter, for in- 
stance, of annual expeditions ? A. Upon that subject I have 
addressed several communications to him. 

Q. Before or after his views were expressed u]3on the sub- 
ject ? A. After. 

Q. After they were officially expressed you addressed him 
communications upon the subject ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State the effect of your address — whether you maintained 
your position. 

The Judge- Advocate — I exceedingly regret to be obliged 
to make so many objections. I would like to give tlie defence 
all proper latitude in conducting their case, but it is my duty to 
keep out matter that is foreign to the issue. It does not appear 
to me, Mr. President, that the actions of the Secretary of War 
prior to September, 1883, enter into this issue. Whatever the 
Secretary of War may have done prior to that time in relation 
to otlier matters has no place here. I therefore object to any 
inquiry from the accused as to the Secretary's action upon other 
official matter prior to September, 1883. The question here is 
the Secretary's action of September, 1883, and the accused's 
letters in reply thereto, but not any other matter. Any matter 



150 THE HAZEN COTJET-MAETIAL. 

that may "have occurred a year or two before or beyond his ad- 
ministration is not the question here. If we are to reopen the 
entire administration of the Secretary of War and his relations 
with the accused prior to that time, the Court can sit here until 
September, perhaps. 

Mr. Macki]Y— I regret, Mr. President, that the learned 
Judge-Advocate still keeps in the objective case in this issue. 
The second specification alleges that the accused, Brigadier- 
General William B. Hazen, Chief Signal Officer of the Army, 
*^did, without having been requested or authorized by the Sec- 
retary of War so to do, address and send to the Secretary of 
War a communication written by him," etc. A specification 
must proceed on matters of law. We admit the addressing of 
that letter. It is either a question of law or a custom. If 
there be law it is not discovered. We will show, as to the 
custom, that there was no requirement that the Chief Signal 
Officer of the Army should first obtain leave from the Secretary 
of War for asking a review of the Secretary's own decision or 
respectfully protesting against it. We will show case after case, 
as the memory of the witness is refreshed, where the Secretary 
of AYar has announced decisions touching this very Arctic work, 
and upon the respectful protest of the Chief Signal Officer of 
the Army he has reviewed tiiem, he has changed them, and, 
where he did not change them, the more learned opinion, upon 
questions of law, of the Attorney-General of the United States 
was invoked, and then the change came through the Chief 
Signal Officer of the Army. 

So it is directly responsive to the second specification, as to 
whether he had not upon occasion addressed the Secretary of 
War a communication as to one of the Secretary's own an- 
nounced decisions touching the administration of the Signal 
Bureau, without first asking leave, and without objection on the 
part of the Secretary of War, That is directly responsive. 

The Judge- Advocate — Each one of these acts of the Sec- 
retary of War may perhaps stand on a different basis. We are 
not called upon to investigate the conduct of the Secretary of 
War in reference to other matters. The question of the second 
specification is simply whether or not he did address that letter 



THE HAZEN COUET-MARTIAL. 151 

of February 17, 1885, to the Secretary of War or not, without 
having been requested or authorized so to do. The question is 
not as to similar transactions ou other occasions. The accused 
does admit that he was not requested, nor was he authorized, 
to send that letter to the Secretary of War. He has admitted 
that, and the admission is before the Court. I must still insist 
upon the objection. 

Mr. Mackey — Does the Court desire any authority on this 
point ? But it is on the face of the specification. How are we 
to answer that, may it please the Court, except by showing that 
it was the custom of the Chief Signal Officer of the Army to ask 
review of decisions without being requested, and that his action 
was sanctioned by the Secretary of War for four years — nearly 
four years? 

The Peesidekt — Is the Court ready for a vote, or does any 
member wish to hear the authority suggested ? 

A member of the Court — I should like to have the pending 
question, and a few of the questions that preceded it, read. 

The reporter read as follows : 

"Q. State whether you had frequent occasion to address the Secretary 
of War directly, and whether you did address him as to matters affecting 
your Bureau. A. Very frequently during the entire time. 

"Q, Very frequently ? A. Yes, sir. 

*' Q. Did you ever have occasion to address him as to a decision already 
made upon a question, or as to his views stated upon a question, regarding 
the administration of your bureau ? A. I think I have. I do not remem- 
ber any particular cases. 

'* Q. I can refresh your memory. As to the matter, for instance, of 
annual e:fpeditions ? A. Upon that subject I have addressed several com- 
munications to him. 

"Q. Before or after his views were expressed upon the subject? 
A. After. 

' ' Q. After they were officially expressed you addressed him communi- 
cations upon the subject ? A. Yes, sir. 

"Q. State the effect of your address — whether you maintained your 
position." 

Mr. Mackey — My meaning in the question is, whether the 
Secretary of War did change his views after this. 

The Peeside2^t — Gentlemen, you have heard the question. 



152 THE HAZETT COUET-MAETIAL. 

If you are prepared to Yote you will do so by ballot. The 
question is, Shall the objection of the Judge- Advocate be sus- 
tained ? 

A vote was then taken by ballot. 

The Judge-Advocate — I am directed by the Court to an- 
nounce as its decision that the objection of the Judge-Advocate 
is not sustained. Will the reporter read the question ? 

The reporter read the question, as amended by counsel, as 
follows : 

Q. State the effect of your address — whether you maintained 
your position ; whether the Secretary of War did change his 
Tiews after this. A. He did. 

Q. In referring to annual expeditions, what was the question 
then between you and the Secretary of War? Did the question 
of construction upon which you addressed the Secretary of 
War after his decision was rendered, arise ? A. What point 
do you refer to ? 

Q. I refer to this : that the Secretary of War was alleged to 
have addressed a letter to the President to the effect that he 
knew of no understanding that the relief expedition party 
should be sent at all for Lieutenant Greely. A. The occasion 
was that in 1882 it was necessary to send a relief expedition to 
Lady Franklin Bay. I addressed a letter to the Secretary of 
War to that effect, and in my communication it stated that the 
plan which was approved by Congress contemplated that an- 
nually there would be a relief expedition sent up. In forward- 
ing this letter to the President the Secretary endorsed upon it 
that he knew of no such understanding, and he rather claimed 
that I had passed beyond my authority in spending all of the 
appropriation of the year before. 

The Judge- Advocate (interposing) — I object to any state- 
ment as to the contents of written records, or to any matter of 
decision by the Secretary of War. The best evidence obtain- 
able, if the question is to be at all inquired into, is to be pro- 
duced. What is the best evidence of that fact ? The Secretary 
of War's own handwriting, or the handwriting over his signa- 
ture ; not the recollection of the witness, but the Secretary's 
own action. 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 153 

Mr. Mackey— If that is pressed, Mr. President, we shall 
have to get the original record. 

The PiiESiDEJTT — I think we had better get the original re- 
cords for that purpose. 

Mr. Mackey — We will return to that hereafter. Perhaps 
when the Court takes a recess to-day we will be able to send for 
it, and not delay the Court. 

The Judge- Advocate — At the same time I desire to say 
that I shall be obliged to object to any statement of the ac- 
cused as to records of that character — that is, where he gives 
his own recollection of the contents of a record. 

Mr. Mackey (to the witness) — In relation to what was it ? 
A. It was in relation to the sending of a relief expedition in 
the year 1882. 

Q. What was the view expressed by the Secretary of War as 
to that special matter, as far as you can recollect ? 

The Judge- Advocate — One moment. Was it verbal or in 
writing ? I want to know that first before the question is put. 

Mr. Mackey — Both. 

The Judge- Advocate — If it is in writing I object, and I 
refer the counsel to the former ruling of the Court on this 
point. 

Mr. Mackey — I will refer to it, and after the recess of the 
Court I will refer to an appendix to the volume which I hold in 
my hand, in which that appears. It is issued by the War De- 
partment, but it is not the original record. It is issued under 
the seal of the War Department, however, as containing it. 
(To the witness:) That was in reference to one matter — the an- 
nual expeditions. In reference to any other matter about 
which the Secretary of War presented his views and your ac- 
tion thereon by a communication, if there be such, please state. 
A. There were several others. 

Q. The question as to whether the Signal Corps was a part 
of the Army of the United States — was that a question, and 
whether you were an officer of the Army of the United States 
or not ? A. That question was raised by the Secretary of War, 
and there were many questions raised. 

Q. What was the question ? Please repeat it. A. The ques- 



154 THE HAZEK COURT-MAETIAL. 

tion was whether the Signal Corps belonged to the Army of the 
United States. There were many communications upon that 
subject, and the matter was finally decided by the Attorney- 
General. 

Q. How was it decided ? 

The Judge-Advocate — Wait a moment. I object to any 
decision being brought in here in the language of the accused. 
If there is any decision that is pertinent at all, bring the de- 
cision itself. The accused is under the same rules as any other 
witness ; the same rules of evidence apply to him as to any 
other witness, and we cannot safely depart from them. 

The President — Any documents that can be produced in 
that connection had better be produced. 

Mr. Mackey (to the witness) — That was with reference to 
the question you have stated, I believe, whether the Signal 
Corps was itself a part of the Army of the United States ? 
A. It was. 

Q. You have stated that that was decided in the opinion of 
the Attorney- General ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you obtain leave of the Secretary of War to address 
him a communication with reference to a matter decided by 
him ? A. No, I did not. 

Q. Did you first obtain leave to address the Secretary of War 
a communication as to these matters already decided by him ? 
A. 'No, sir ; I did not. 

Q. State whether any objection was made by the Secretary of 
War to receiying and considering communications of that class 
from you after he had decided. A. I never received any. 

Q. Now, as to another matter — a protest against his action, 
addressed without leave. They are so numerous I presume that 
you cannot recall them. Take up the Olmsted matter. A. I 
recall one — the assignment of Captain Olmsted to the Signal 
Corps. I made serious objections to it on the ground that he 
was not competent, and had been once dismissed for embezzle- 
ment and reinstated by Act of Congress, and I did not believe 
him to be an officer with whom funds should be trusted. I 
made that objection as strongly as I could. 

Q. In writing ? A. Yes, sir ; in writing* 



THE HAZETT COURT-MAETIAL. 155 

Q. What was the result ? 

The Judge- Advocate — I would like to know whether the 
answer was in writing. 

Mr. Mackey (to the witness) — What became of Captain 
Olmsted ? A. He was afterwards assigned to me, and after- 
wards made an embezzlement, as I told the Secretary of War 
he would, and was dismissed from the Army. 

Q. Did you ask leave to protest against his appointment of 
Captain Olmsted to the Signal Corps ? A. I did not. 

Q. Did you protest against it ? A. I did protest against it. 

Q. Did the Secretary of War object to your protesting with- 
out leave ? A. Not at all. 

Q. He did not ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Are you aware of any law or custom requiring the Chief 
Signal Officer of the Army to first obtain leave from the Secre- 
tary of War before addressing him upon matters relating to his 
bureau ? A. I am not. 

Q. Now, as to the first specification. It is alleged in the 
first specification that in your annual report for 1884 you used 
the following language : 

"On the return of the escort ship bringing the relief party to St. John's, 
September 13, there was still time, as known from previous experience 
and shown by subsequent facts, to send effective relief." 

Did you use that language ? A. I did. 

Q. It is charged that you used that language to criticise the 
official action of the Secretary of War and impugn the pro- 
priety thereof. Was that your intent in using that language ? 
A. It was not. 

Q. Please state your intent. A. I had been held to a most 
serious responsibility for not effectively rescuing the Greely 
party. It was published all over the world that I was iu fault. 
I merely wished to state that fact — a fact which I knew — that 
Mr. Greely could have been rescued, and I did all in my power 
to have him rescued, and that I was not responsible for its not 
being done. That was all my intent. 

Q. Did you intend, either directly or by innuendo, by that 
language to charge or imply that the Secretary of War had been 



156 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

guilty himself of a neglect of duty in the premises ? A. Not 
at all. 

Q. Now we will pass to the second specification. The second 
specification alleges that you did address to the Secretary of War 
a communication, bearing date the 17th day of February, 1885, 
concerning the official action of the Secretary of War, and con- 
taining, among other statements, the following : 

" 1 respeetf ally submit that I am justified in the conclusion that the 
tragic termination of the International Polar Expedition was finally due to 
the decision not to dispatch a steam-sealer to effect its rescue on the 15th of 
September, 1883, which I did all in my power to have done ; such sealer, 
starting from St. John's, N. F., only thirteen days' steaming from Cape 
Sabine, in all human probability could have reached and rescued the party 
before there was any interruption to navigation by ice. ..." 

This at Washington, D. 0. 

Did you obtain leave first to address that to the Secretary of 
War ? A. I did not. 

Q. Were you aware of any law or custom that required you 
to obtain leave to address such a communication to the Secre- 
tary of War ? A. I was not. 

Q. That disposes of that. The third specification alleges a 
writing of the same communication recited in part in the second 
specification, and containing, among other things, the following 
language : 

*' The Secretary of War, in his annual report for the year 1884, was 
pleased to make me the subject of severe strictures because, in my official re- 
port of the final disaster to the International Polar Expedition, I expressed 
the conviction that such disaster would have been averted had a ship of res- 
cue been dispatched from St. John's, N. F., after the return of Lieutenant 
Garlington to that port, etc." 

To save the time of the Court, if you will let me have the let- 
ter, Mr. Judge-Advocate, we can economize time, because I can 
just ask as to the whole letter without reciting that. 

The letter of February 17, 1884, was handed by the Judge- 
Advocate to the counsel for the accused. 

Mr. Mackey (submitting the letter in question to the wit- 
ness) — Did you write that letter to the Secretary of War? A. I 
did. 



THE HAZEN COUET-MARTIAL. 157 

Q. Is tliat the original letter ? A. That is the original let- 
ter. 

Q. That is your signature ? A. That is my signature. 

Q. Did you believe, at the time that you wrote that let- 
ter, that each and every statement contained therein was true ? 
A. I did. 

Q. Did you or did you not possess the proof of each and 
every statement contained therein ? A. I did. 

Q. Did you intend to criticise and impugn the Secretary of 
War or his action, by these words in the letter: 

" I respectfully submit that this evidence embraces the only expert tes- 
timony that has been adduced upon the vital question whether a steam- 
sealer of the first class, such as the Bear or Neptune, starting from St. 
John's, N. F., as late as September 15, could have made the passage of 
Melville Bay, and reached Cape Sabine or Life-Boat Cove or its vicinity, in 
the autumn of 1883, and rescued Lieutenant Greely and his party " ? 

A. I did not. 

Q. You did not so intend? A. I did not so intend. 

The Judge- Advocate — He is not charged with having done 
80. That language is not part of the specification. 

Mr. Mackey — The endorsement is introduced, and the en- 
dorsement which is projected into the case does, and that is 
evidence. (To the witness :) When you used the words in that 
paragraph, "I respectfully submit," did you mean them ? A. I 
did. 

Q. As to the closing paragraph of the letter, did you intend 
to criticise or impugn, or evidence any disrespect to, the Secre- 
tary of War by the following language : 

" While the action of the Secretary of "War in the premises was dictated 
by his sincere convictions of public duty, I believe it can be established 
beyond question that such action made certain that final disaster to Lieu- 
tenant Greely's Arctic party which the violation of their orders by Lieu- 
tenant Garlington and Commander Wildes had rendered highly proba- 
ble"? 

A. I did not. 

Q. What was your intent in writing that letter ? A. The 
Secretary of War in his annual report had largely confirmed tlie 
opinions expressed in the press that I was responsible for the 



158 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. , 

death of those men. His report made me either wilfully culpable 
or neglectful and inefficient in my work. Neither was true. 
He had also been misled with regard to facts which he stated. 
He had come to the conclusion^ on inaccurate information, that 
it was not practicable to send an expedition in that autumn 
after the return of the Yantic, My knowledge of the facts 
made it certain to me that it was practicable. He also added, 
as the last closing portion of that paragraph, a statement of Cap- 
tain Schley with regard to the winter in that section of country, 
and particularly at Upernayik, stating that the temperatures had 
fallen for three months during the winter to 60, sometimes be- 
low, Fahrenheit, and that the season was the most severe known 
in thirty years. I believed that I had in my possession and 
could get the exact full data upon those subjects, and I felt 
certain that the Secretary of War had been misled with regard 
to those facts. 

I then wrote to the Danish government, and received from 
that government the official record of the temperatures during 
all that period of time for that section. I found that I was 
right and that Commander Schley was entirely wrong. The 
temperatures, as shown in evidence in one of the twelve en- 
closures, were nowhere nearly as low as he had given. Where 
he had given it —60, it was from about +20 or 25 to —30 all 
through those months. 

I also secured from the best Arctic navigators I knew — Mr. 
Melville, and Mr. Greely who was on the spot, and several of the 
very best Arctic authorities who had been engaged in sealing in 
those waters all their lives from ten years upwards to twenty or 
thirty — what they knew of the subject, and I found that in every 
case where the testimony was expert and of value and reliable, 
that they fully confirmed my opinion. It took me nearly all 
of that autumn and winter to get that information together. 
It was very late when I did get it, but when gotten together I 
assembled them and wrote a letter stating the simple, plain facts 
as I had proven them by my investigations. I did this to 
relieve myself of that blemish upon my record which his re- 
port had wrongly placed there. I had no other purpose in the 
world. 



THE IIAZEl^ COURT-MARTIAL. 159 

Q. Did you intend to assail the Secretary of War as to liis 
motives or his action, or assail the authorities upon Avhich he 
bused his action — which did you intend to assail ? A. I in- 
tended to assail the facts as lie had stated them. 

Q. Stated them of his own knowledge or upon authority ? 
A. Upon authority. He knew nothing of that subject of his 
own knowledge, never having had any experience in regard to it. 

Q. Who was your issue with, then, with the Secretary of 
War or with the authorities ? A. The authorities. I plainly 
state as much in the opening and the ending of my letter. 

Q. How many officers of the Signal Corps and enlisted men 
of the Army were in the G-reely expedition — commissioned offi- 
cers and enlisted men ? A. There were three commissioned 
officers, a contract surgeon, and twenty enlisted men. 

Q. And what others in addition in the expedition, besides ? 
A. There were two Eskimos, and altogether there were twenty- 
five of Eskimos and enlisted men. 

Q. I mean what was the size of the party including the offi- 
cers ? A. There were twenty-five altogether. 

Q. How many of them perished, according to the official re- 
cord ? A. Nineteen. 

Q. As to the commissioned officers, how many of the three 
commissioned officers survived ? A. Only one. 

Q. Name him. A. Lieutenant G-reely. 

Q. Wlio were those who perished ? A. Lieutenant Kisling- 
bury. Lieutenant Lockwood — 

The Judge-Adyocate (interposing) — I must object, Mr. 
President. We are getting up to the Arctic expedition and are 
about to investigate the disaster to Lieutenant Greely's party, 
if that line is kept up any further. I do not think that is a 
question to this issue, and therefore I respectfully object to any 
investigation as to what the disaster was, who did and who did 
not die, or anything about it. 

Mr. Mackey — May it please the Court, we have been in the 
Arctic from the beginning. The charge and specifications re- 
late to the Arctic, although the prosecution has not been want- 
ing in some torrid heat whenever we have attempted to present 
our evidence in the case. ■ 



160 THE HAZEI^ COURT -MAETIAL. 

We submit to the Court that it is proper to show that this 
disaster was one of great magnitude. "We know that the pro- 
secution does not wish to touch Cape Sabine. That is monu- 
mental. They wish to shrink from that. The accuser does 
not wish to see those horrors at all. 

But I am asking the Chief Signal Officer of the Army as to 
the disaster and the detail made for this work in the Interna- 
tional Polar Expedition of 1881, as to the number of officers 
and men who perished, and it is material to the argument in 
this cause. The Secretary of War himself has referred to the 
fact, in his official report for 1884, which is in evidence, that it 
ended m disaster. He does not mention the two commissioned 
officers of the United States Army and the seventeen enlisted 
men who perished there — he does not name them. Oh! no. 
Never were heroes unnamed before. They are not named ! 
We want to hear their names from the officer whose imme- 
diate order dispatched them, sent them up to sunless shores 
where they died in the line of their duty, and have not had 
their names mentioned in official reports. 

We propose to show the animus of the accuser : that he was 
impelled step by step with a malice so deep and deadly against 
the Chief Signal Officer of the Army that he became blind 
upon any question touching Arctic matters that General Hazen 
suggested. We want to show his deep, tireless hate ; that, in- 
deed, his very body exhaled malice wherever the Chief Signal 
Officer was named. We want to show that the magnitude of 
this disaster was such that its reflection upon him, the weight 
of it upon the mind of the Chief Signal Officer of the Army, 
as in public rumor and by press paragraphs the responsibility of 
the disaster was imputed to him, challenged him to the proof, 
or rather to the disproof, of the aspersions cast upon him ; 
that it was a disaster of such magnitude as to properly com- 
mand his attention. 

It cannot be hidden from the country. The Secretary of 
War has referred to it. I am now asking the names of the men 
who died in the line of their duty, and who in obedience to 
their orders went there, sent out by an order signed by the 
Chief Signal Officer of the Army. That is the only ques- 



THE IIAZEN COURT-MAKTIAL. 161 

tion — their names ; tlie names of these commissioned officers 
and men ; the result to them of doing their duty. 

We do not propose, may it please the Court (the Court have 
sufficiently indicated its yiew on that matter), to enter into this 
wliole question of Arctic work and thus fatigue the indignation 
of the Court as well as waste its time. We do not ])ropose that. 
We just want to know their names, and we will pass on and 
leave that particular branch. Just their names is all we ask. 
He has stated that nineteen perished. 

The Judge- ADyoc ATE — Mr. President, the prosecution does 
not shrink from haying anything brought forward in this case 
that is material. The country is very anxious to have it 
brought forth. But it is my duty to confine this inquiry, 
as far as lies in my ability, to its proper bounds. I think there 
is no issue here upon the Arctic expedition and Lieutenant 
Greely's disaster — that is, it is not pertinent to any of these 
specifications. I therefore still insist upon the objection. 

Mr. Mackey — I call the attention of the Court to the third 
specification, which alleges that the accused did throw the blame 
of the disaster on the Secretary of War. We are going to show 
what that disaster was. 

The Judge- Advocate — It is, that he did tell the reporter 
so ; that is the gist of it. 

The President — It is now one o'clock. The Court will be 
closed for deliberation, and afterwards a recess will be taken. 

The Court then retired to an adjoining room for deliberation, 
and afterwards a recess was taken. 

The recess having expired, all being present as before, the 
Court resumed its session. 

The Judge-Advocate — I am directed by the Court to an- 
nounce as its decision that the objection of the Judge- Advocate 
is sustained. 

Mr. Mackey — Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, 
I stated to the Court before the recess that I would produce the 
appendix to a volume, which I present for the sole purpose that 
it contains in official form certain statutes and communications 
to which reference will be made. It is issued by the War De- 
partment, and printed at the G-overnment Printing-Office. It 



162 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

is the appendix containing the records produced before the 
Proteus Court of Inquiry. With no purpose to refer to that 
court, it simply happens to appear there. We do not. wish to 
mutilate the work by cutting out the pages, or we would have 
presented them alone. 

The Judge- Advocate — I would like to know what those 
documents are. 

Mr. Macket — This is a memorandum of a communication 
taken in person to the Secretary of War, without letter of trans- 
mittal, about the 1st of April, 1883, with reference to the Arc- 
tic expedition. 

The Judge- Advocate — Please let me look at it before you 
use it in evidence. 

Mr. Macket (to the witness) — ^I hand you that communica- 
tion for you to identify it, and I will then question you as 
to the endorsement on that communication. You can state 
what it relates to. (Handing the document referred to to the 
witness.) 

The Judge- Advocate — When the answer is made I should 
like to have an opportunity to examine the record from which 
the accused testified. 

Mr. Mackey — That is the alleged record. I can authenti- 
cate the appendix as part of the records of the Signal Office. 

The Judge-Advocate (after examining the document in 
question) — May I ask in what connection this is to be intro- 
duced ? 

Mr. Macket — I call the attention of the witness to it to 
authenticate it as a correct print of the memorandum which it 
professes to be a copy of. 

The Judge-Advocate — And you desire to introduce it in 
evidence here ? 

Mr. Macket — That far I have gone, for him to authenticate 
it as correct. 

The Judge- Advocate — Is it for the purpose of producing 
this in evidence or not, if you please ? 

Mr. Macket — Yes, to this extent — not the wliole of it, but 
to authenticate that with a view to call his attention in the next 
question to an endorsement on it by the late Secretary of War. 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 163 

The Judge- Advocate — Mr. President, this document sought 
to be introduced in evidence here seems to be part of the ex- 
hibits to the proceedings of the Proteus Court of Inquiry and 
the Greely relief expedition. It seems that this printed ex- 
hibit. No. 152, is an official copy of some of the records of the 
Signal Office. 

The Presidei^t — I do not understand that the counsel pro- 
duces it with reference to that Court of Inquiry, but that he 
produces it for the purpose of showing the order of the War 
Department which recites the law — for the purpose of showing 
what the law is. 

The Judge- Advocate — It is just there that my objection 
comes in. That part sought to be introduced does not speak 
of the law. It is a memorandum of the Chief Signal Officer. 

The President — We can read it in a moment. It seems to 
me that that question has been decided ; that we decided we 
would receive it in that form. If it is a different document 
from what was promised to be introduced, we should like to 
know it. 

The Judge-Advocate — The part sought to be introduced 
relates to the Arctic expedition, and it is for that reason, Mr. 
President, that I enter my respectful objection to it. It is not 
a matter appertaining to this Court. 

Mr. Mackey — I beg leave to call the attention of the Court 
to the fact that we proposed in this form to present the record, 
or a printed transcrij)t of the record duly authenticated, show- 
ing the memorandum taken by the Chief Signal Officer of the 
Army on the 1st of April, 1883, to the Secretary of War, for 
the purpose of having the Chief Signal Officer, now on the 
stand, testify as to the endorsement of the Secretary of War 
which appears in this reprint — the endorsement upon that 
memorandum. I submit to the Court that in applying the 
rules of evidence to the point before the Court it must be 
borne in mind that the party who made the memorandum is 
himself the accuser ; that he is not only the accuser, but he 
has succeeded in standing afar off, and yet exporting into this 
case his testimony. The Court will take judicial notice of the 
fact that the endorsement upon the letter of the Chief Signal 



164 THE HAZE]^ COUET-MAETIAL. 

Officer of the Army, which is recited in the third specification, 
is a matter foreign to the specification. What the Secretary of 
War endorsed upon the letter of the Chief Signal Officer is not 
evidenced. But it contains aspersions upon the accused, foreign 
matter infused into the specification, and that the accuser is vir- 
tually impugning the accused through matter that does not move 
in support of the specification — merely language of his own. 

We propose to show a record here to show the animus of 
the accuser. We do not have him here on the witness-stand. 
That issue we have challenged in every possible form. We 
limited our admissions in the case in order to get him here, and, 
as we will show, the case has been virtually surrendered in law 
rather than place the late Secretary of War, Mr. Robert T. 
Lincoln, on this witness-stand. This interprets his animus. He 
gives his construction of the language of a letter addressed to 
him by the accused — a construction carrying with it the weight 
that a construction given to an official paper by the Secretary of 
War would naturally carry. 

But, may it please the Court, as accuser he is not Secretary 
of War. He stands upon the same plane as any other accuser, 
subject to the very same tests. We cannot have him here. We 
propose to trace the spirit and temper of the accuser which has 
led to his construction upon which he bases the charge — trace 
it through his acts ; not to have this Court determine to sit in 
judgment upon the Secretary of War, or by its judgment, if it 
should be favorable to the accused, declare that the Court 
thereby condemns the action of the Secretary of War ; that is 
not the issue. 

But we desire, moving within the lines prescribed by the 
laws of evidence to assail the construction put by the accuser 
upon the acts of the accused, to guard against undue weight 
being given to that construction. It is admissible, may it please 
the Court, in all cases to show the animus of the accused. 
This is what we propose to read. It need not go into the record 
until the Court decides. This is the point : 

"Endorsement of the Secretary of War: The Arctic expeditions ori- 
ginated in the Signal Office, and no other bureau seems to have taken the 
slightest interest in them." 



THE HAZEX COURT-MAKTIAL. 165 

That IS true. Wo want to show it by the Secretary of War him- 
self — that he did not take the slightest interest in them. That 
is the point. Tliat is only a part of the paragraph. That is 
the point to which my question will be directed, that part of the 
para-rai)h, and I will read tlie whole paragraph when I come to 
read the paper. 

The Judge- Advocate — Mr. President, this memorandum 
seems to be dated April 9, 1883. It is not the original. The 
initials R. T. L. are affixed to it. If it is sought at all to intro- 
duce before this Court any writing or any matter of decision by 
the late Secretary of War, Mr. Lincoln, the proper avenues for 
subpoenaing or for producing such a document are open to the 
accused as well as to the prosecution. If he desires to bring that 
document in here, the original should first be produced, not 
what purports to be a copy made in the Signal Office by the ac- 
cused. That is one objection that I have. 

The other objection that I have is that the matter is not per- 
tinent to this issue. It occurred long before the matters alleged 
in these specifications occurred. The memorandum was made 
six months previous to the decision of the Secretary of War of 
December 19. It has nothing whatever to do with this case, 
and, being not relevant to the issues before the Court, I desire 
to object to its introduction. 

Mr. Mackey — It is a record issued by the War Department 
that we exhibit. 

The PKESiDEiTT (to the Judge-Advocate) — Will you inform 
the Court what the record says on the question which called for 
the production of this paper ? 

The Judge-Advocate — I apprehend, Mr. President, that 
nothing of this kind came up before. 

The Presidei^t (to the Judge-Advocate) — Do you object to 
the relevancy of the document or to the form of its presen- 
tation ? 

The Judge- Advocate — I object to it because it is not the 
original paper, and also because the subject is not relevant to 
this issue. 

A member of the Court— I should like to have that portion 
of the record which refers to this matter read. 



166 THE HAZEN COUET-MAKTIAL. 

The reporter read as follows, beginning with the latter por- 
tion of the answer of the witness : 

"The Witness — In forwarding this letter to the President' the Sec- 
retary endorsed upon it that he knew of no such understanding, and he 
rather claimed that I had passed beyond my authority in spending all of the 
appropriation of the year before — 

" The JuDGE-AuvocATE (interposing) — I object to any statement as to 
the contents of written records, or to any matter of decision by the Secre- 
tary of War. The best evidence obtainable, if the question is to be at all 
inquired into, is to be produced. What is the best evidence of that fact ? 
The Secretary of War's own handwriting, or the handwriting over his sig- 
nature ; not the recollection of the witness, but the Secretary's own action. 

'* Mr. Mackey — If that is pressed, Mr. President, we shall have to get 
the original record. 

" The President— I think we had better get the original records for 
that purpose. 

"Mr. Mackey — We will return to that hereafter. Perhaps when the 
Court takes a recess to-day we will be able to send for it, and not delay the 
Court." 

Mr. Mackey — I then offered that as a volume issued by the 
War Department. It is an appendix, rather, to that volume. 
It contains a number of public statutes and orders on page 109 
of the appendix. 

The Peesident — Is the Court ready for the determination 
of the question ? The vote will be taken by ballot, unless some 
member desires the Court to be cleared. The question is, Shall 
the objection of the Judge- Advocate be sustained ? 

A vote was then taken by ballot. 

The Judge- Advocate— I am directed by the Court to an- 
nounce as its decision that the objection of the Judge- Advocate 
is sustained. 

Mr. Mackey (to the witness) — Will you state by whose 
order Lieutenant Arthur W. Greely was appointed to the com- 
mand of the Lady Franklin Bay Polar Expedition ? 

The Judge-Adyocate — Mr. President, at the early part of 
this inquiry — that is, at the early part of the examination in 
chief of this witness^the question was asked in reference to the 
International Polar Expedition. It was objected to by the 
Judge- Advocate, and the Court sustained the objection. 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAKTIAL. 167 

Mr. Mackey — I beg pardon on that point. The Court did 
not. The Court overruled it very promptly. 

The Judge- Advocate— Then I have not remembered the 
action correctly. 

Mr. Mackey — Undoubtedly. 

The Judge- Advocate — I would like to have the reporter 
read the record on that point. 

The reporter read the decision of the Court upon the point 
as follows : 

** The Judge- Advocate — I am directed by the Court to announce as its 
decision that the objection of the Judge- Advocate is sustained." 

Mr. Mackey — That went to the jurisdiction of the Secre- 
tary of War, and the Court certainly sustained that. We are 
charged with impugning his decision ; and if we cannot show 
that he had no authority to make it, we cannot show what the 
defence thinks is germane to the question, and every question of 
that kind. 

The Judge- Advocate — The record must speak for itself in 
this case. The Court refused to enter into any investigation as 
to how or by whom the expedition was set on foot. If I under- 
stand the ruling of the Court correctly, they disposed of that 
subject and the subject as to by whom Lieutenant Greely was 
sent there. 

The PRESiDEi^T — The Court decides that the record as read 
on that point is correct. 

Mr. Mackey — And the Court thereby excludes the defence 
from questioning the jurisdiction of the Secretary of War to 
make that very decision. I ask that that go upon' the record — 
the particular question that the Court has ruled on. 

The Judge-Advocate — It is an entirely different question 
that the counsel now argues. He must draw his own inferences 
from the decision of the Court. 

Mr. Mackey — I will now ask this question : Whether it was 
under this statute, " An act to authorize and equip an expedi- 
tion to the Arctic seas," that the Lady Franklin Bay Expedition 
was authorized, and the Chief Signal Officer of the Army charg- 
ed with certain duties in relation to the expedition — the act of 



168 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

May 1, 1880? We have the right to introduce a public statute. 
That is an absolute right. We now introduce the act of May 1, 
1880. Whether that was the act or not, that is the question. 
We introduce it to show that the Secretary of War had no Juris- 
diction to decide as to whether an expedition should sail or not 
sail ; that he was an intruder into a field beyond his jurisdic- 
tion. 

The Jxtdge-Advocate — There is no doubt, Mr. President, 
that the Court is obliged to take judicial cognizance of all Acts 
of Congress. It is perfectly natural, but I deny the purpose 
for which it was introduced as stated by the counsel. The 
Secretary of War is the lawful organ of the President of the 
United States. He is the medium of communication. The 
acts of the Secretary of War are, in contemplation of law, the 
acts of the Pj-esident of the United States. An authority on 
this subject can be very easily produced. 

Mr. Mackey — I simply ask if that is the act under which 
the expedition sailed. I do not ask leave to introduce the act, 
but only whether that is the act under which the expedition 
sailed. 

As to the Secretary of War being the organ of the President 
of the United States, may it please the Court, if it is meant by 
that that to charge an officer with impugning the decision of 
the Secretary of War means impugning the decision of the Pre- 
sident of the United States, that is not true, either in law or 
in fact — there is no question of that : that in the ordinary ad- 
ministration of the War Department in its relation to the 
military establishment, and the ordinary and regular adminis- 
tration of the Secretary of War, it is assumed he acts with the 
sanction of the President of the United States, unless the con- 
trary appears. But when the duty relates to a matter beyond the 
sphere and normal powers and duties of the Secretary of War — 
an expedition in foreign lands, sailing from a foreign port to- 
wards the ISTorth Pole, an expedition commercial in its nature as 
well as scientific, as the statute shows, or a scientific expedition 
to discover new whaling grounds — and the statute says that the 
authority shall be vested in the President of the United States, 
it cannot be held that the contravening of an order of the Sec- 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

retary of War is the violation of the order of the President of 
the United States, where the President appears upon the scene, 
frames an executive order, signs it, and sets the expedition in 
motion. And if we were charged here with impugning and 
criticising the official action of the President of the United 
States, according to the view of the learned Judge- Advocate, it 
would be sufficient to maintain that charge if we criticised and 
impugned the action of the Secretary of War, as he is the organ 
of the President. But they are two different persons, and the 
only question I put to the witness is: *'Is that the statute 
under which the expedition sailed ? " 

The President (to the counsel for the accused) — There is 
no doubt that you have a right to refer to these statutes in your 
argument, but the question is now whether it is customary or 
proper to receive those statutes in evidence. 

Mr. Mackey — I only ask the witness whether that is the 
statute. 

The Preside j^T — I will ask you whether it is customary to 
receive statutes of that kind in evidence before courts, or whether 
the practice is not merely to refer to them in the argument ? 

Mr. Mackey — It is not necessary or customary to do so, for 
the Court takes notice of a public statute. I propound the 
question, *'Is that the statute under which the expedition sail- 
ed ? " The statute does not answer that question. 

The Judge-Advocate — I do not object to the question as 
much as I do to the counsel's statement. He distinctly states 
that he introduced that statute for the purpose of showing that 
the Secretary of War had no jurisdiction in the matter. That 
is what I object to. Let him ask the naked question, and then 
let the Court draw its own inferences. But do not let him 
force on the Court his own views, so that hereafter he can claim 
that he introduced the book for such and such a purpose, and 
claim that you allowed him to produce the statute for the express 
purpose by him stated. That is what I object to, Mr. President. 
The Court must judge, not he, of the effect of that statute. 

Mr. Mackey — I simply stated the object of asking the 
question, and the exact reason why the Court should admit it: 
that the accused has always a right to assail the jurisdiction 



170 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

of an officer whose decision he is charged with haying yiolated. 
Cases frequently occur under the ninth Article of War where 
a soldier is charged, for example, with assailing an officer in the 
execution of his office. It becomes a material question to know 
whether he was, in the execution of his office, within his juris- 
diction, and in response to the question of the learned Judge- 
Advocate I stated that the purpose was, in asking the question 
about that statute, to the end that we were ascertaining the 
jurisdiction of the Secretary of War to make the order that we 
are charged with criticising. 

The Peesidekt (to the Judge- Advocate) — You object to 
the question. In what form is your objection ? 

The Judge- Advocate — To state the subject anew, I will 
simply say that I object to any inquiry by this Court into the 
question of by whom or how the International Polar Expedi- 
tion was set afoot; that this question is part and parcel of the 
same subject heretofore sought to be introduced by the counsel 
and overruled by the Court. The statutes speak for themselves. 

The Presiden"! — If there is no objection the vote will be 
taken by ballot. The question is, Shall the objection of the 
Judge-Advocate be sustained ? 

A vote was then taken by ballot. 

The Judge-Advocate — I am directed by the Court to an- 
nounce as its decision that the objection of the Judge- Advocate 
is sustained. 

Mr. Macket — May it please the Court, the annual report 
of the Chief Signal Officer for the year 1884, I understand, is in 
evidence, and I introduced so much of the report as is com- 
prised between the marked lines on page 16 and as marked 
down to page 19. I now call the attention of the witness to 
that. (To the witness:) Eead tliat, if you please — a part of your 
annual report. 

The witness read from the annual report of the Chief Signal 
Officer of the Army to the Secretary of War for the year 1884, 
page 11, as follows : 

"The general plan received the signature of the President the 28th 
of April, and the expedition was established by Act of Congress approved 
May 1, 1880." 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 171 

Mr. Mackey — That is sufficient. (To the witness :) Is that 
true ? A. It is. 

Q. Now further as to the third specification. It is stated 
by the accuser in this case, Mr. Robert T. Lincoln, the Secre- 
tary of War, in liis endorsement upon the back of your obnox- 
ious letter of date February 17, that your letter is returned with 
the remark '^ that a breach of military discipline which could 
not be overlooked may be avoided by the retention, by the 
Chief Signal Officer, of the within paper in his own hands." 
Did you retain it in your own hands after that ? A. I did. 

Q. They exhibit a copy of it in this paper after giving you 
that information. Did you furnish them with a copy ? A. I 
did not. 

Q. Did your office furnish a copy ? A. It did not. 

Q. Did you exhibit it for publication in any form ? A. I 
did not. 

Mr. Mackey (to the Judge- Advocate) — Let me see the date 
of the extract from the Chicago Tribune, if you please; the pa- 
per has disappeared. I think it was February 25. 

The Judge-Advocate — That is my recollection. (After 
referring to the record:) Yes, it is February 25. 

Q. It appears in the opening of the endorsement of the 
Secretary of War on your letter of date February 17, 1885, as 
follows : 

*' The within paper, bearing date of February 17th instant, was receiv- 
ed at the War Department Februarv 26, and is respectfully returned to the 
Chief Signal Officer." 

Now, here is the paper received at the War Department on the 
26th of February, addressed to the Secretary of War, while in 
the Chicago Trihune of the 25th, the day before the letter was 
actually received by the Secretary of War, a notice of it ap- 
pears in which you are assailed. How did you keep that letter ? 

A. It Avas kept in my desk. 

Q. Has it not happened, or has it happened, within the re- 
cent past, that letters have been purloined from desks of the 
Signal Office and taken to the Secretary of War ? A. They 
have been. 



172 THE HAZEN" COUET-MAETIAL. 

The Judge-Adyocate — Mr. President, I do not think this 
Court has anything to do with the matter of the purloining of 
letters from the Signal Office. The purloining of letters is 
not an issue in this case. The question is not relevant, it is for- 
eign in its issue, and I am in duty bound to object to it. 

Mr. Mackey — The purpose, Mr. President and gentlemen 
of the Court, is this : To negative the presumption that the ac- 
cused circulated the contents of this letter either before or after 
it had been received by the Secretary of War. The presump- 
tion is raised against the accused that he exhibited the letter be- 
cause a paper of date one day prior to the reception of the let- 
ter contains a notice of the letter. 

I propose to show that letters 'have been purloined. I pro- 
pose to show that they have been purloined, taken to the Secre- 
tary of War by the person purloining them, and that that per- 
son received special employment after the purloining. I want 
to show the general course of administration with reference to 
the Chief Signal Officer of the Army ; that nothing was safe or 
sacred in the Signal Bureau from the hand of the Secretary of 
War, by day or by night. And I have a right at least to show 
that letters have been purloined, to rebut the presumption that 
an extract of this very letter should have been published the 
day before it was delivered to the Secretary of War. For if this 
presumption lies upon the accused, it may indicate that he was 
seeking the newspapers as the forum in which to adjudicate 
controversies between himself and the Secretary of War. We 
introduce it to repel that presumption, if we go no further. 

The Judge-Adyocate — Mr. President, the accused has him- 
self, in the cross-examination, raised that issue about the Chi- 
cago Tribune — in the cross-examination of Eudolph Kauffmann. 
It was a collateral matter, a collateral issue. The answer to 
that question in the cross-examination bars him from further 
investigation of the matter. He is bound by it, and that is 
the end of that inquiry. 

The Secretary of War sets out, in his endorsement upon the 
letter of February 17, that the letters of date of February 
17 had not been received in his office until the 26th day of 
February. There can be no question here in this cause as 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 173 

to wlietlier letters have been purloined from tlie Chief Signal 
Officer's office or not. I have, however, no objection should the 
accused or his counsel ask whether that letter had been j^ur- 
loined from his office or not. I should not object to that. But 
it is a general question Avliich he asks, not in reference to this 
issue, but in reference to something else — something that lias 
nothing to do with this case. 

I must still insist upon my objection. I do not reply to 
the gentleman's insinuations as to the conduct of the Secretary 
of War. The late Secretary of War needs no defence from me 
on that subject, and I think attacks of that character, com- 
ing from the other side, are not, to say the least, in very good 
taste. 

Mr. Mackey — This is not a forum for adjudicating ques- 
tions of taste. May it please the Court, as to the objection 
made by the Judge- Advocate that the i^aragraph in the Chicago 
Tribune was brought out by the cross-examination, I beg refer- 
ence to the record, which I submit will show that Mr. Kauff- 
mann, on his examination in chief, mentioned the Chicago Tri- 
tune ; at least I think so. At least there has been an exami- 
nation upon that point, and that objection would apply if we 
were cross-examining Mr. Kauffmann. But it does not ap- 
ply here. We are asking the simple question as to whether 
letters were not sometimes purloined. That is preliminary to 
the specific question as to where that letter was placed. 

It must strike the attention of the Court as a matter worthy 
of explanation that the Honorable Secretary of War, in his en- 
dorsement upon the letter of the Chief Signal Officer of the 
Army, returned it to his hands, stating to him that if retained 
he might be compelled to regard it as a breach of military 
discipline. That implied that he retained no copy. It was not 
to be assumed that so extraordinary an act of official magna- 
nimity as returning the evidence of an officer's assumed guilt 
to his own custody would be marred in its moral beauty by the 
retention of a copy at the same time. It is not like the Cau- 
casian race. And there is the hiatus. How did the accuser get 
the copy ? This bears against the accuser, his credibility. It is 
intended to break the force of his construction of that letter. 



174 THE HAZEI>r COURT-MAETIAL. 

whicli he has attached to the specification, by setting up his en- 
dorsement. 

The Judge- Advocate — An examination of the record shows 
that in the examination in chief of Mr. Eudolph Kauffmann 
not one word is mentioned about the Chicago Tribune. The 
question about the Chicago Tribune was raised by the other 
side later in the cross-examination. 

Mr. Mackey — I would like to look at that matter before the 
Court passes upon it. 

A member of the Court — Is there anything said in it about 
a Western paper ? 

Mr. Mackey — Yes ; the very interview recites the Chicago 
Tribune which has been put in evidence. The interview in the 
Evening Star, I think, mentions the Chicago Tribune. I am 
not positive ; I have not the paper. 

The Judge- Advocate — No, sir ; not a word that I can find. 

Mr. Mackey — The fact is in, it matters not how it comes. 
(After referring to the record :) May it please the Court, it ap- 
pears that in the cross-examination the witness for the govern- 
ment, to prove the alleged interview published in the Star, an- 
swered on cross-examination : 

** Q. Now try and recollect your response to that inquiry of his in sub- 
stance. A, In substance it was that I had seen in a copy of the Chicago 
Tribune . . .'' 

and the Chicago Tribune was introduced in evidence, or that 
paragraph of the Chicago Tribune. We ask with reference to 
that matter ; it matters not how it comes in — it is in. 

The Judge- Advocate — My statement is made good by the 
record, that the prosecution did not bring in the fact of the 
:Chicago Tribune. 

Mr. Mackey — But it is brought in by the government wit- 
ness. 

The Judge-Advocate — I shall not yield my objection, but 
I leave the matter to the Court. 

The PEESIDEI5-T~lt has been thought possible that the 
-counsel of the accused might think it not hostile to the in- 
terests of their case if they put the question to General Hazen 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 175 

whether, from his own knowledge or by his own act, this paper 
had ever gotten out of his possession. Perhaps if the question 
is put in that form it would save further discussion. 

Mr. Mackey — Very well, I will put that question. (To the 
witness:) General Hazen, you have stated that you did not ex- 
hibit that paper for purposes of publication or otherwise. Do 
you know, of your own knowledge, whether this paper passed 
out of your possession between the time when you wrote it and 
the time when you addressed it to the Secretary of War ? A. It 
went out of my possession to the Adjutant to be engrossed. 

Q. Into whose possession did it return then ? A. To mine. 

Q. Did it go to any employee of your office? A. It probably 
went into the hands of the Chief Clerk. That would be the 
usual course. 

Q. Did you give it out, in whole or in part, before its de- 
livery to the Secretary of War ? A. To no one, except as I just 
explained. 

Q. We come now to a material point. It is alleged in the 
third specification of Mr. Kobert T. Lincoln, the accuser in this 
case, that you did, in response to an inquiry made by a news- 
paper reporter as to whether you, the said General Hazen, had 
written a letter to the Secretary of War throwing the blame of 
the loss of the Greely party upon his shoulders, ^intentionally 
make a statement, in answer to said newspaper reporter, with 
a view to its publication, and did cause the same to be pub- 
lished, on the 2d day of March, 1885, in a newspaper printed 
and published in the city of Washington, D. C, called the 
Evening Star,^' etc. Will you please state whether that is 
true ? A. It is not. 

Q. State, as near as you can recollect, exactly what trans- 
pired between you and Mr. Kauffmann, the reporter of the 
^Evening Star, on the evening of March 1 — the evening of the 
alleged interview — as to this matter. A. On the occasion in 
question, the evening of March 1, I was in the lobby of this 
hotel. Passing through a very dense crowd of people, I was ac- 
costed by Mr. Kauffmann, who asked me if what was in a Chi- 
cago paper of some previous date, the 25th, was true. I told 
him I had seen nothing in a Chicago paper, and knew nothing 



176 . THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

about anything in it ; and as I had not, I asked him to describe 
to me what was there. He then went on to say that the Chi- 
cago paper stated that I had written a letter in which I had 
thrown the blame of the Greely disaster upon the shoulders of 
the Secretary of War ; and that it also stated that I had put off 
this letter until just before the close of the administration, in or- 
der to be away from Washington when the letter should be print- 
ed, and also to be away from Washington until the Secretary of 
War should go out of office. I told him that I had written a let- 
ter in which I had enclosed evidence to support my statements 
in my annual report, as the Secretary of War had attacked me 
for it in a way which made it necessary, I thought, for my own 
record and for the truth of history, that I should support my 
statements with these facts. I did not mention the Secretary 
of War ; I did not mention any name. I merely referred to it as 
a decision. I also told him that the story about my wishing to 
go South to be away when the letter was published was false in 
every particular, as I had no intention of publishing the letter, 
and I had no intention of being away at the time the Secretary 
should receive it or at the time the Secretary might go out of 
office. That I had asked to go South on official duty, but it had 
no relation whatever to that letter, and I did not intend to go 
until about the middle of the month. Mr. Kauffmann was mis- 
taken in saying that I said about the middle of the week. The 
fact is, it was the 14:th of the month that I had set to go. 



SIXTH DAY. 



Rooms of the Gejteral Coukt-Martial, 

Ebbitt House, Washij^gtok, D. C, 

Tuesday, March 17, 1885, 11 A.M. 

The Court met pursuant to adjournment. 
The direct examination of Brigadier-General William B. Ha- 
zen, the accused, was resumed as follows : 

Brigadier-General William B. Hazeist then resumed the 
witness-stand, and his direct examination was resumed. 

By Mr. Mackey : 

Q. Referring to the point at which your testimony closed on 
yesterday, will you please state whether there was anything said 
by the reporter Kauffmann to lead you to infer that he desired 
to interview you as to this matter ? A. There was nothing of 
that kind said, nor did I suppose for a moment that it was an 
interview. I knew Mr. Kauffmann pretty well, and we never 
passed without having a pleasant word. I have met him ten 
times where there was nothing published, where there was one 
time that anything was published; and, in fact, it never occurred 
to me at the moment that he was a newspaper correspondent at 
all. I cast no blame upon him for publishing it, but I had no 
idea that it was for publication. 

Q. This is bhe publication referred to in the specification, 
though not recited (reading): 

" THE GREELY PARTY DISASTER. 

" GENERAL HAZEN THROWING THE BLAME ON THE SECRETARY OF WAR. 

**'Is it true,' asked a Sta?' reporter of G-eneral Hazen, 'that you 
wrote a letter to the Secretary of War throwing the blame of the loss of the 
Greely party upon his shoulders ? ' 

" 'I did write such a letter,' was the reply." 

177 



178 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

State whether the question was asked you and your reply made 
iri the connection stated in this paragraph. 

The WiTiTESS — Please repeat the question. 

Q. I recite from the Evening Star of March 2, referred to 
in the third specification, the following : 

'* ' Is it true,' asked a Star reporter of General Hazen, ' that you wrote 
a letter to the Secretary of War throwing the blame of the loss of the 
Greely party upon his shoulders ? ' 

" ' I did write such a letter/ was the reply." 

Please state whether the question and the reply were made 
in the connection stated in this publication. A. It was not 
made as there reported. I answered, as I have already stated, 
without mentioning the Secretary's name, and stating that I 
had written a letter in which was embraced the evidence of the 
truth of my statements in my official report. 

Q. The reporter proceeds to state as your language : 

*' * I did write such a letter,' was the reply. ' It was a straightforward 
statement of facts in regard to the matter." 

Did you use that language ? A. I nsed the latter part of that 
language, that it was a straightforward statement of facts in 
regard to the matter. 

Q. But not the former. Again he professes to cite your 
language : 

*' I produced evidence to show that, had my recommendation of having 
another expedition start from St. John's immediately after the loss of the 
Proteus not been entirely ignored by the War Department, the Greely 
party could all have been saved." 

Did you use the words published as I have read them ? Did 
you use every one of those words ? A. I did not. I used the 
portions which said that if an expedition had been sent imme- 
diately after the loss of the Proteus, as I had recommended, 
the Greely party would have been saved. 

Q. State whether you used the term "ignored " in your in- 
terview. A. I did not. 

Q. What term did you use, if you can recall it ? This says, 
''Had my recommendation of having another expedition start 
from St. John's immediately after the loss of the Proteus not 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 179 

jeen entirely ignored by the War Department," etc. A. I used 
the words, *^if the decision had not been made not to send." 
Q. Then, to read further from the publication in the Star : 

*'I felt it my duty to myself to make this statement after the severe 
manner in which the Secretary of War spoke in his report of my alluding 
to the matter in my annual report. My intention to go South was in no 
way connected with the letter." 

Did you use that language, or any language reflecting upon 
the Secretary of War ? A. I used in substance that language, 
but not any language intended to reflect upon the Secretary of 
War. 

Q. The specification alleges that you did intentionally make 
a statement in answer to said newspaper reporter with a view 
to its publication. Had you any view to its publication? 
A. None whatever. 

Q. Did you cause the same to be published ? A. I did 
not. 

Q. Please state whether, after this publication on the 2d of 
March, and between that time and the preferring of the charge 
and specifications in this case, any inquiry was made of you by 
the Secretary of War as to whether you authorized that publica- 
tion. A. There was not. 

Q. No inquiry was made of you ? A. None whatever. 
The first intimation I had was the order placing me in arrest. 

Mr. Mackey — That was your first information that it had 
been brought to his attention. (Addressing the Court :) Mr. 
President, the course of the examination of the accused which 
I now propose entering upon may be determined by the view 
that the Court holds as to whether the recital, in the third spe- 
cification, of the endorsement made by the Secretary of War on 
the letter of the 17th of February, 1885, is to be considered as 
a part of the specification. It is a recital of the views of the 
Secretary of War himself — quite a voluminous recital. It is 
manifest that it does not belong to the specification, but is an 
argument. The rule is that all argumentative matter must be 
excluded from the specification. If the Court holds that that 
is to be considered by the Court as matter belonging to the spe- 
cification properly, then we must address evidence to it. 



180 THE HAZEN COFRT-MAETIAL. 

But tliat, may it please tlie Court, could hardly be held. 
The Court may very properly strike out what is manifestly re- 
dundant — strike it out on motion. Here is an argument entered 
into by the accuser in the case, and his deductions presented, 
whereas the subject of the third specification is the letter itself. 
It must speak for itself, and it is respectfully submitted to the 
Court that the deductions of the accuser, based upon that let- 
ter, ought not to be blended with the letter itself. 

It is not alleged in the specification proper that the Chief 
Signal Officer of the Army had imputed to the Secretary of War 
a "neglect of duty." It is not alleged in either of the spe- 
cifications that the Chief Signal Officer of the Army had used 
terms of disrespect to the Secretary of War, or that he intended 
to impugn the Secretary of War. 

No intent is charged of disrespectful conduct and language, 
except in the endorsement, which it was clearly not necessary 
to recite, because the letter has been quoted and contains the 
endorsement, and the endorsement could not have been put in 
evidence. If the endorsement had contained an injunction 
which the Chief Signal Officer had violated after receiving it, it 
would have been material. But the endorsement consists itself 
of the Secretary's construction of the letter. He is the accu- 
ser. We desire to know whether the accuser is to testify in tins 
form in the Court. The rule is that he must be present, if his 
statements are to be considered, he standing upon the same 
plane as any other accuser, the charge to be made good by 
proof. 

If the Court holds that that is not specially to be answered — 
the mere endorsement — then I will not examine the accused as 
to the Secretary of War's construction, which is not properly 
matter of charge here and does not belong to the specification. 

The Judge- Advocate — Mr. President, it is rather unusual, 
at this stage of the proceedings, to ask the Court to strike out 
and not consider certain parts of the specification already before 
the Court and pleaded to by the accused. The endorsement re- 
ferred to by the counsel on the other side has been admitted in 
evidence by the accused. The whole document is before the 
Court, and that endorsement forms part of the gist of the offence, 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 181 

as I take it. In that endorsement upon this letter the Secretary 
of War returns the whole correspondence to the accused ''with 
the remark that a breach of military discipline which could not 
be overlooked may be avoided by the retention by the Chief 
Signal Officer of the within paper in his own hands." 

That endorsement is set out as a descriptive averment of the 
offence alleged to have been committed. It is put there evi- 
dently for the purpose of showing that after the accused had 
this opportunity to bury the correspondence, and not to ven- 
tilate it before the public and elsewhere, he nevertheless, not- 
withstanding that opportunity, did say to a Star reporter this, 
and thus it is alleged in the specification. 

Therefore that part of the matter set out in the specifica- 
tion becomes very important. It is alleged, in other words, 
that notwithstanding this offer of the Secretary of War to allow 
him to bury the correspondence, to keep it to hi nself, the ac- 
cused did publish its purport to a Star reporter. 

I therefore ask that the Court will not take any action 
upon the request of the accused or his counsel, as it is a most 
unusual one to ask a court beforehand as to whether it will 
consider part and parcel of the proceedings before tlie trial has 
reached a final conclusion. I therefore ask that no action be 
taken upon this remarkable and unusual request by the other 
side. 

Mr. Macket — It may appear unusual to the Judge-Advo- 
cate, but the opinions of the Judge-Advocate-General of the 
Army as published, and the writers upon courts-martial, all 
lay down the proposition that the court may at any stage, upon 
motion, strike out or quash the specification or any part of it 
where it appears to be wrong. Indeed, the authorities go 
further and hold that the court, without motion, may retire, 
whether at the beginning of the trial or at any stage of it, 
and, after considering matters in the specification, may decide 
that they are irrelevant and that evidence need not be address- 
ed to them. 

If the writing of the letter to the Secretary of War was not 
in itself an offence, if the matter of the letter did not render the 
accused obnoxious to this charge, if the publication alleged did 



182 THE HAZEJS- COUET-MAETIAL. 

not render him obnoxious to the charge, then the fact that that 
endorsement was put upon the letter would not make him ob- 
noxious to the charge of conduct to the prejudice of good order 
and military discipline. That endorsement may be introduced 
in evidence, as it was a part of the letter. But the question I 
submit to the Court is, whether it is proper as a part of that 
specification. It recites the action of the Secretary of War, his 
opinion as to the letter, whereas we are entitled to have that 
letter considered by the Court, unclouded by the opinion or the 
construction of the Secretary of War. Tlie Court must con- 
strue the letter, while this endorsement is simply a construction 
of the letter itself by the accuser. 

As to the act of magnanimity referred to by the Judge- 
Adyocate, I will, at the proper time, review that very fully. 

The Judge-Advocate — Mr. President, the counsel for the 
other side has not advanced anything that would change my 
purpose or my statement that I have heretofore made on the 
subject, and I will again, if the Court will permit, reiterate 
that that endorsement of the Secretary of War is as much in 
evidence before this Court as the letter itself. It was admitted 
by the accused in evidence. It was not questioned when the 
prosecution brought the letter out, and I will again say, gentle- 
men, that that endorsement of the Secretary of War is an im- 
portant link in the specification, the third specification ; it is a 
descriptive averment of the offence committed ; it is a part and 
parcel of the whole controversy. You cannot sever it from the 
remainder without doing violence. I therefore ask again, gen- 
tlemen, that you take no action upon the request made by the 
other side. 

The President — Do the members of the Court desire the 
Court to be cleared, or shall we vote on this question by ballot ? 

Mr. Mackey — The Court understands my motion, that the 
endorsement be stricken out as irrelevant to the specification, as 
not properly forming a part of that specification. 

A member of the Court — The entire endorsement ? 

Mr. Mackey — The entire endorsement as a part of the spe- 
cification, while it may be considered as evidence outside of the 
specification. 



THE HAZEN COUKT-MAETIAL. 183 

Tlie Judge-Advocate — Since the counsel has stated his 
purpose, which was not clearly stated before, I shall object to 
the motion as being illegal, improper, and not relevant at this 
stage of the proceedings. 

The President — The question is, Shall the motion of the 
counsel for tlie defence to strike out, as stated, be entertained ? 

A vote was then taken by ballot. 

The Judge-Advocate — I am directed by the Court to an- 
nounce that the motion of the accused is not sustained. 

Mr. Mackey (to the witness) — Well, General Hazen, you 
will, then, proceed to answer the argument of the Secretary of 
War in the specifications. The Secretary of War, the accuser 
in this case, argues upon this construction, after referring to 
your letter, that your letter was an " official expression . of 
opinion to the effect that the failure of the Secretary of War 
to organize in two days and dispatch to the Arctic regions a 
new expedition at a season which made it certain that it must, 
under the best circumstances, encounter all the rigors of an 
Arctic winter, was a neglect of duty." 

The Judge-Advocate — What are you reading from, if you 
please? 

Mr. Mackey — I am reading from the argument of the 
accuser in the third specification. 

The Judge- Advocate — From the endorsement of the Secre- 
tary of War on the letter ? 

Mr. Mackey — It is entitled the endorsement. 

The Judge- Advocate— Whereabouts, please ? 

Mr. Mackey — It is at the bottom of the third page before 
the last. (To the witness:) Did you in this letter intend to ex- 
press an opinion to the effect that it was the duty of the Secre- 
tary of War to organize a relief expedition in two days? A. No, 
I did not. 

Q. Did you intend to charge the Secretary of War in that 
letter with a neglect of duty because he did not organize a 
relief expedition in two days ? A. No. 

Q. You did not ? A. No. 

Q. Is the construction of the accuser in this case, the Secre- 
tary of War, correct or incorrect upon that point, as you under- 



184 THE HAZEK COUKT-MAETIAL. 

stand your meaning and intent ? A. It is not correct. I did 
not intend to charge neglect to any one. I did intend to say 
that it was a mistake not to have sent an expedition that au- 
tumn. There were a good many days — that is, there were more 
than two days — in which it could have been prepared and still 
have time to have gone. I did not intend to charge neglect 
upon any one. 

Q. In the endorsement upon that letter referred to, the Sec- 
retary of War stated : 

*' The strictures made by the Secretary of War in his annual report, 
and now referred to by the Ciiief Signal Officer, were addressed to the ex- 
traordinary conduct of the Chief Signal Officer, as a military officer, in pub- 
licly controverting the propriety of previous official action of his official 
superior, the Secretary of War, and that, too, in a matter in which the 
Chief Signal Officer had no official responsibility." 

Did you or did you not believe that you had an official respon- 
sibility as to that matter ? A. I had no official responsibil- 
ity for the decision of the Secretary of War. I did have the 
greatest responsibility which one man can bear to another to 
do everything in my power for the relief of that expedition. 
It was a responsibility far beyond official routine. It was a re- 
sponsibility which one man bears to another when he goes into 
deep water where he cannot return without the assistance of 
that man, which had been promised in the strongest possible 
terms, both expressed and implied. There was nothing, no for- 
tune which I possessed, no energy which I possessed, but was 
due to these men to assist and rescue them. They had gone 
there under an implied and absolute promise, and I did every- 
thing in my power to get them out of it, and I was ready to 
spend the last cent I possessed ; and in 1882, when the Neptune 
was to be sent and Congress was very slow in making the ap- 
propriation, and it was doubtful if it would make it, I engaged 
that boat myself on my own responsibility. I would have done 
the same thing in the fall of 1883, if I had been permitted. 

Q. To be sent for what purpose ? A. The Neptune was sent 
for the relief expedition in 1882 — that is, the ordinary annual 
relief expedition. I would have done the same thing in 1883, 
if I had been permitted to do it. Congress, however, did ap- 



THE IIAZEN COURT-MA ETIAL. 185 

propriate the money in 1882, and I was relieved of that ne- 
cessity. 

Q. In this construction, made by the endorsement, of your 
annual report (for this is an argument on your annual report as 
well as an argument as to the alleged publication) the Secretary 
of War states that his strictures in his annual report were ad- 
dressed to the extraordinary conduct of the Chief Signal Officer, 
as a military officer, in publicly controverting the propriety of 
previous official action. Did you publicly controvert the pro- 
priety of official action ? 

The Judge-Advocate (to the witness) — Wait a moment be- 
fore you answer. 

Mr. Mackey— These interruptions are unwarranted. I ask a 
question in the language of the Secretary of War's own endorse- 
ment, and the witness is halted and asked not to answer. He is 
asked in that language, which is the only proper form in which 
to negative it by evidence. 

The President (to the Judge-Advocate) — What is your ob- 
jection ? 

The Judge- Advocate — I have not any. I simply desire to 
hear and understand the question, so as to be able to make an 
objection if necessary. 

The Pkesideis'T (to counsel for the accused) — You may pro- 
ceed. 

Mr. Mackey (to the witness) — Did you intend to question 
the propriety of the Secretary of War's action or the authority 
upon which it was based ? A. I did not. 

Q. Which did you intend to question, the authority upon 
which he based his action or the propriety of his action as re- 
lated to his duty as Secretary of War ? A. The authority of 
the fact. I merely meant to say what I knew to be a fact in 
regard to my own conduct, which was necessary for my own de- 
fence. 

Q. The Secretary of War states in the endorsement that the 
propriety of his action in not sending a ship in September, 
1883, to the Arctic regions is not a proper subject of discus- 
sion between the Chief Signal Officer and the Secretary of War. 
State whether he did or did not discuss that publicly with you. 



186 THE IIAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

The Judge-xVdvocate — Does not the paragraph commence 
with the words, ^' The correctness of the judgment of the Chief 
Signal Officer," etc.? 

Mr. Mackey — Yes ; but I am reciting part of the sentence 
in the body of my question. You have dismembered the sen- 
tences of the annual report in the specification. We do not fol- 
low that. (To the witness:) The endorsement reads: "Tlje cor- 
rectness of the judgment of the Chief Signal Officer in the ex- 
pression made by him, in his last annual report, of his views as 
to the propriety of the action of the Secretary of War in not 
sending a ship in September, 1883, to the Arctic regions, is not 
a proper subject of discussion between the Chief Signal Officer 
and the Secretary of War." Did or did not the Secretary of 
War publicly controvert the correctness of your judgment in his 
annual report ? A. He did. 

Q. He states here it is not the proper subject of discussion. 
State whether he did discuss it in his annual report. A. He 
did, at length. 

Q. State whether he did pass harsh strictures upon you in 
his annual report. A. He did. 

Q, Was that before or after the writing of your letter of the 
17th of February, 1885 ? A. It was before. 

Q. So much for the publication and the argument of the 
Secretary of War. To recur to another matter: You have 
stated that the purpose of your letter was to relieve you of the 
imputation of being responsible for the final disaster to the 
Greely party. How were you aware that the imputation was 
cast upon you, that you were in some degree responsible for that 
final disaster ? A. By public expressions, and by the reading 
of the Secretary's report upon tlie subject, and by other means. 

Q. Do you know whether that opinion that impugned you 
as responsible for the disaster existed in any other country than 
this ? A. I do not. I never had any evidencp that it did. 

Q. Do you know Mr. John Syme — the Honorable John 
Syme, of St. John's, Newfoundland ? A. I do. 

Q. Do you recall his letter upon that subject as to the 
opinion existing in Newfoundland ? A. The letter is in evi- 
dence. 



THE nAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 187 

Mr. Mackey (to the Judge-Advocate) — Have you tliat 
letter ? 

The Judge-Advocate — Yes ; I have the letter from Mr. 
Symc, 

Tlie Judge-Advocate handed the letter in question to the 
counsel. 

Mr. Mackey — I will read a part of the letter of the Hon. 
John Syme, of Newfoundland — formerly governor, I believe — 
Avhich forms one of the enclosures in that letter. I will read the 
part as to which I desire to question General Hazeu. It was a 
letter addressed to General Hazen, and is dated St. John's, ISTew- 
foundland, 22d of December, 1883. 

The counsel read from the letter as follows : 

*' It was only the other day I heard you recommended immediately on 
the arrival of the Yantic the fitting-out of a sealing-steamer to continue the 
search, and I am glad for your sake that you did so; for it proved you had 
not (mly a proper estimate of the probabilities of success, but that you had 
the heart to feel for those who were trusting that no effort to succor them 
on the part of yourself or your government would be considered too great." 

(To the witness :) Did you receive that letter ? A. I did. 

Q. Were you present upon the arrival of the dead from the 
Arctic, and the living, the survivors, Lieutenant Greely and his 
companions ? A. At what point ? 

Q. At Portsmouth, on their return to this country. A. I 
was. 

Q. Was the Secretary of War present ? did he go to receive 
them ? A. He was not present. 

Q. Was the Secretary of the Navy there ? 

The Judge-Advocate— Mr. President, I would ask that all 
that part of the evidence submitted as to whether the accused, 
the Secretary of War, or any one else was present on the arrival 
of the Greely party at Portsmouth be stricken out. I object 
to that line of examination, because it has nothing to do with 
the merits of this case. It is extraneous; it is foreign to it ; it 
is not relevant. 

Mr. Mackey — I submit, may it please the Court, that it 
is now relevant. The Secretary of War who formulated the 
charge and specifications, the accuser in the case, has virtually 



188 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

testified in the case by incorporating his construction of the 
letter on which the charge is in part based. It is competent to 
show the animus of the accuser, who has placed his construc- 
tion before the Court, in showing that his deductions do not 
properly spring from the language or the acts of the accused. 
We submit that it is competent to show that his deductions 
would naturally be colored by hostility to the accused, and by 
the temper of the accuser himself as to the matters out of 
which the controversy grows. We have convicted, we submit, 
or endeavored to do so, the Secretary of War of a spirit of 
violent hostility to the accused. We propose to show by cir- 
cumstances, that so great was his hostility to Arctic work and 
those engaged in it under the direction of the Chief Signal 
Officer of the Army, that his malice did not halt at the grave 
itself. Two officers of the Army had. died in the line of their 
duty in the Arctic, and their dead bodies were returned — Lieu- 
tenants Kislingbury and Lockwood. The Secretary of War, 
when eminent men of this nation assembled to do honor to the 
living and the dead, was absent, and purposely, as we propose 
to show. That is the object. 

The Peesidekt (to the counsel) — Will you halt a moment, 
or are you through ? 

Mr. Mackey — Yes, I am entirely through. 

The Judge-Advocate — I still object. The other side has 
not advanced anything to change my views on the subject, and, 
without detaining the Court in the matter, I ask a decision. 

The Pkesidei^^t — What is your motion ? 

The Judge-Advocate — My motion is to strike out so much 
of the evidence as refers to the arrival of the Greely party at 
Portsmouth. I also object to permitting any further investiga- 
tion in the same direction, because the matter is extraneous and 
has nothing to do with the case ; is foreign to the issue. When 
I move to ^' strike out" that part of the evidence, I mean that 
it is not to be considered as proper evidence in this case. 

Mr. Mackey — I should like to know whether the objection 
is to the question I have just put or to the answer the wit- 
ness made. The questions are recorded and the answer is re- 
corded. 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 189 

The President — I do not know that the answer is re- 
corded with reference to the question concerning the Secretary 
of the Navy. 

The Judge-Advocate — No, it is not. I interposed. 

A member of the Co art — I would like to have that portion 
of the record read. 

The reporter read as follows : 

"Q. Were you present upon the arrival of the dead from the Arc- 
tic, and the living, the survivors, Lieutenant Greely and his companions ? 
A. At what point? 

'•' Q. At Portsmouth, on their return to this country. A. I was. 

*'Q. Was the Secretary of War present ? did he go to receive them ? 
A. He was not present. 

" Q. Was the Secretary of the Navy there ? (The Judge- Advocate ob- 
jected.) 

Mr. Macket — I have no further questions to ask on this 
point. I shall not touch it again. 

The Pkesident— The Court will be cleared, but it will be in 
the form of a retirement of the members of the Court for de- 
liberation. 

The members of the Court and the Judge- Advocate then re- 
tired to an adjoining room for consultation with closed doors. 

After some time spent in deliberation with closed doors 
the members of the Court and the Judge- Advocate returned to 
the court-room. 

Tlie President — The Court is called to order. 

The Judge- Advocate — I am directed by the Court to state 
that it decides to sustain the motion of the Judge-Advocate to 
strike out as stated in the record. 

I am also directed by the Court to make known the follow- 
ing decision. In the opinion of the Court the strictures upon 
the late Secretary of War, the accuser, in which the accused, 
through his counsel, has indulged, are not warranted by any 
evidence yet before the Court, and the Court will not permit 
such strictures to be made not justified by the evidence. 

Mr. Mackey — May it please the Court, we respectfully sub- 
mit to the Court that the counsel must, in the first instance, 
make his deduction from the evidence and present it. We 



190 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

propose to question the animus of the accuser, and I trust that 
he does not mean to debar us from that right at the proper time, 
in argument, not at this stage, unless we can show the animus 
by the evidence. We will endeavor to show that animus, and 
we respect the decision of the Court. 

The President — It being one o'clock, the Court will take a 
recess. 

Mr. Mackey— Will the Court allow me to state it is due to 
the counsel for the accused to state that, in making the impu- 
tation that the Secretary of War did not receive the dead at 
Portsmouth, counsel were not aware that he did visit Gover- 
nor's Island afterwards. He has just been informed of that fact 
by General Hazen — 

The Presidei^t — Yes, he did. 

Mr. Mackey— -Who desires me to explain that fact, that he 
yisited Governor's Island upon the request of General Hazen. 

The Presidei^t — The Court will take a recess of thirty 
minutes. 

A recess was then taken until 1.30 p.m. 

The recess having expired, all being present as before, the 
Court resumed its session. 

Mr. Mackey — Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, 
in order that the counsel for 'the accused may not violate the 
ruling of the Court, and may understand distinctly the limitation 
which, by the judgment of the Court, is imposed upon counsel 
as to strictures upon the accuser, I beg leave to ask whether the 
Court, by the decision announced, holds that the accuser in 
the case is not to be subject to any strictures — any strictures — 
or whether, in the judgment of the Court, the decision of the 
'Court was intended to apply to the strictures in connection 
with the particular question that he was not present to welcome 
the Arctic survivors and to honor the dead. 

I have explained that I learned, after making the reflection, 
that the Secretary of War had, upon the earnest request of the 
Chief Signal Officer, joined in receiving the dead at Governor's 
Island, though not receiving the survivors at Portsmouth. 

I desire to know whether the view of the Court expressed is 
intended to apply to that question only, and if the strictures 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 191 

were not warranted, as to that particular point, or as to 
whether the accuser is to be exempt from all strictures ; for 
it would be necessary, may it please the Court, in the argument 
to draw deductions from the views of the accuser and liis action 
in relation to the endorsement and other acts, and if the Court 
holds that the accuser cannot be properly subjected to strictures 
I would ask leave to submit to the Court a long line of authori- 
ties upon that point, that where a question of construction en- 
ters, where the accuser has presented it, or has presented his 
recollection of any fact, it is competent to show that his deduc- 
tion has been colored by personal hostility, or that his recollec- 
tion is not to be relied on, that it may have been swayed by hos- 
tility to the accused. 

I would like to know whether the decision is general that 
the accuser in this case is not to have his construction im- 
peached or his motives impeached in the matter of the charge 
and specifications preferred against the accused, and submit to 
the Court that if the accuser were present in court we could 
assail him through a cross-examination and evidence itself to 
discredit him ; and as he has come to this Court with that en- 
dorsement, that it would be legitimate. I would like to know 
whether the decision is special or general ? 

The Judge-Advocate — The decision speaks for itself, Mr. 
President. I might add that the latter part of the decision, as 
I understood it, was independent of any matter that the Judge- 
Advocate brought up, and it was separately announced. 

Mr. Mackey — Allow me to state that the accused has in- 
dulged in no strictures. His acts must speak for themselves. 
The counsel for the accused, in the discharge of his indepen- 
dent duty as counsel, has presented his deductions in support 
of positions that have been assailed, and only to that end, and 
the acts of the accused speak for themselves. It is submitted 
to the Court that the accused has indulged in no strictures 
through his counsel, and that it would be just to the accused 
not to charge him in the midst of a case, before it is com- 
pleted — to render a decision upon the action of the accused 
in this case. And if it is possible to spread upon the record 
of the Court an objection, it is the duty of the counsel to ask 



193 THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 

that it be there placed ; that the accused speaks for himself, 
has indulged in no strictures, and that the counsel argues the 
special questions that arise. I simply desire to note that. The 
decision speaks for itself in its words, but how far it extends 
I cannot tell. 

The PEESiDENT—The counsel must proceed according to 
the language of the decision, and if he should err in his con- 
struction of it his attention will be called to the fact. 

Mr- Mackey (to the reporter) — Will you read the last 
answer ? 

The Judge-Advocate — There is nothing pending now. My 
motion has been sustained. 

Mr. Mackey — It will be necessary — 

The Pkesidekt (interposing) — I will ask the counsel to sus- 
pend for a moment while I inquire of the Judge- Adyocate in 
what form the first decision of the Court when it last retired 
is recorded — in what form was it entered upon the record ? 
The decision of the Court was to strike out the portion object- 
ed to by the Judge-Advocate. 

The reporter read the portion of the record which, upon the 
motion of the Judge-Advocate, was ordered to be stricken out. 

The Peesidekt — From that point down to the time of the 
clearing of the Court the questions and answers are directed to 
be stricken out from the record ; that is the decision. 

Mr. Mackey — The second specification alleges, G-eneral Ha- 
zen, that you did address the letter which is cited, to the Secre- 
tary of War, without having been requested or authorized so to 
do ; and you mentioned instances in which you had addressed 
the Secretary of War letters without his request or special au- 
thorization. Can you mention other instances besides those al- 
ready given ? A. I could mention several subjects. Soon after 
the Secretary of War became Secretary he began urging ques- 
tions as to many subjects, which I will name, which required 
me to answer them, and some of the answers were replied to by 
himself, which made it necessary for me to reply again ; and 
really the list of subjects I will mention extended nearly through 
the whole four years. They were of a kind which compelled 
me to answer them, because they were obstructive to my work. 



THE HAZEN COUKT-MARTIAL. 193 

Q. Did you answer without special leave first asked and 
granted ? 

The Judge-Advocate — I would like to know wliether 
those answers were in writing or verbal. If they are written, 
under the former ruling of the Court they should be produced. 
In my opinion we cannot go into questions of the recollection 
of the accused. The best evidence must be produced in all 
such cases, as the Court heretofore has ruled. 

Mr. Mackey — May it please the Court, the Judge-Advocate 
appears to have mistaken the rule of evidence. The rule of 
evidence which requires the production of a written instrument 
instead of a recollection of a written instrument is one which 
relates to a case where the instrument itself is the basis of the 
action, not where it enters collaterally. If the accused was set- 
ting up some written instrument to establish some fact which 
had to be accurately established, then the production of the 
instrument could be demanded. But the accused is simply 
asked as to the practice of his office in addressing the Secre- 
tary of War. He may state in reply, if the fact was so, I 
have addressed him a hundred or more different communi- 
cations without being first requested or specially authorized 
so to do. 

It does not follow that the learned Judge-Advocate could 
demand the production of each. He is testifying as to his 
practice. If he were asked now to give the contents of an 
instrument, then the objection would lie, under the rules of 
evidence, and the Judge- Advocate could demand the instru- 
ment. But he is simply asked to what subject it related. 

Now, if the written paper were shown, it would show the 
subject, it is true. But it is submitted to the Court that it is 
proper that the rules of evidence, which govern in courts-mar- 
tial as they govern in the civil courts, should apply, and for the 
accused simply to state the subject to which it related ; and if it 
is insisted on, if the Court holds that that objection must be 
sustained, we will then put in each and every one of these in- 
struments and ask the necessary time — and there will be a very 
long series of them— put them in and ask the necessary time to 
issue the subpoena duces tecum to bring them here. It is the 



194 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

right of tlie accused to bring tliem, if tlie Court holds it is es- 
sential that tliey should be brought. But it is not proposed to 
enter into the contents, but to state the subject to which it re- 
lates, and nothing more. 

The question was then read by the reporter as follows : 

Q. Did you answer without special leave first asked and 
granted ? 

The Judge- Advocate — I withdraw the objection and will 
let that one be answered. I may enter another objection after- 
wards. 

A. I did answer without leaye. 

Q. Please state another subject as to which you addressed 
the Secretary of War without leave first being asked and grant- 
ed. A. A statute provides that in each and every year two 
sergeants of the Signal Corps may be promoted to second lieu- 
tenants upon the recommendation of the Chief Signal Officer. 
On the first occasion when it was necessary to hand in these 
names the Secretary of War declined to hand them to the 
President, upon the plea that he did not think the Signal Ser- 
vice was in the Army, and he did not think — 

The Judge-Advocate (interposing) — One moment. I ob- 
ject to the admission of that evidence, if it is in writing ; nor is 
it material to this issue. 

Mr. Mackey — If the Court sustains the objection we will 
produce it to-morrow. 

The President — The Court seem to have ample evidence 
of the facts intended to be shown, as far as we understand the 
matter : that on several occasions the accused, after decisions of 
the Secretary of War, sent written communications to him ou 
the subject of those decisions, appealing against them, and with- 
out especial permission of the Secretary of War being asked to 
that efiect. 

Mr. Mackey — We have, then, no more questions, except to 
ask this. (To the witness :) Were you rebuked by the Sec- 
retary of War in either of the cases for addressing him with- 
out being specially requested or authorized to do so ? A. Not 
at all. 

Q. Now we will pass to another matter. The Secretary 



THE HAZEN COTJRT-MAETIAL. 195 

of War in his report for 1884, at page 24, uses this lan- 
guage : 

" The Secretary of War knows of no one whose opinion would be con- 
sidered, except the Chief Signal Officer, who would not have regarded such 
an expedition not only as substantially hopeless for any relief earlier than 
was actually given, but perilous in the extreme, if not foolhardy." 

What did you understand by the use of the word "foolhardy '* 
in that connection — did you understand it as impugning your- 
self or not ? 

The Judge- Advocate — One moment. Mr. President, the 
language speaks for itself. No one is responsible for the under- 
standing the accused might have had, and that has nothing to 
do with this case. The language is plain and is susceptible of 
construction. The accused now comes before this Court and- un- 
dertakes to go through the Secretary of War's report and give 
his opinion of what he thought the language implied. That is 
one question. The Secretary of War's report is in evidence and 
it speaks for itself as far as the purposes of this Court are con- 
cerned. It makes no difference what anybody else might have 
thought of that language and how he might have construed 
it. So that I consider the question as one entirely immaterial 
to the issue. 

Mr. Mackey — Mr. President, I submit to the Court that it 
is material what the understanding of the accused was of that 
language. He has testified that he had been made the subject of 
harsh strictures in this report. The letter which is in evidence 
opens with that statement — that the Chief Signal Officer of the 
Army had been made the subject of harsh strictures in the re- 
port of the Secretary of War. The Secretary of War, in his 
endorsement upon the letter which is in evidence, admits that 
he did make the Chief Signal Officer of the Army the subject 
of strictures. He certainly couples with him the term "fool- 
hardy," and as to what the understanding of the accused was 
is material. 

The Court may hold, when it comes to make up its final de- 
cision, that the understanding was not warranted. But his un- 
derstanding was material. We are considering the question of 
motive. He has testified to his motive, and this is one of the 



196 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

paragraphs that contain the stricture which the Secretary of 
War admits in his endorsement he made upon the Chief Signal 
Officer of the Army, and it is not a violent construction to give 
that it is intended to classify the Chief Signal Officer of the 
Army among the foolhardy. He certainly does state that the 
project recommended by the Chief Signal Officer was deemed, 
not by him, but by those whose opinion would be considered, as 
'^perilous in the extreme, if not foolhardy." I ask the wit- 
ness as to whether he understood that term ^' foolhardy " as ap- 
plying to his action. And, whether he was mistaken or not, it 
governed his action. That is the question, as to his understand- 
ing of the stricture. 

The Judge- Advocate — As I have said, the language speaks 
for itself. I do not waive the objection. 

The President — The question is, Shall the objection of the 
Judge- Advocate to the question be sustained ? 

A vote was then taken by ballot. 

The Judge- Advocate — T am directed by the Court to state 
that the objection of the Judge-Advocate is not sustained. 

The question was then read by the reporter as follows : 

Q. What did you understand by the use of the word *^ fool- 
hardy " in that connection ? Did you understand it as includ- 
ing yourself or not ? A. I understood that to refer to all per- 
sons, not to any particular individual, who should approve or 
recommend a plan for the relief of Lieutenant Greely with an 
expedition leaving St. John's after September 15. 

Q. Please answer the question. Did you understand it as 
including yourself ? A. I did. 

Q. Tlie Secretary of War states among other things, in his 
annual report for 1884, the following : 

" Waiving, however, that consideration, if there had at the time been 
given more weight to the views of that branch of the public service under 
whose management there had been one futile and one disastrous expedition 
in the northern seas in two successive years, than to the views of men hav- 
ing experience in such matters, it is now hardly to be doubted that we would 
have had last summer the news of two Arctic calamities instead of one." 

What did you understand the term "that branch of the pub- 
lic service " to mean ? A. That meant the Signal Service. 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 197 

Q. Are those the strictures to which you refer in the open- 
ing of your letter of February 17, 1885 ? A. They are. 

Q. The Secretary of War states in his annual report that he 
consulted certain persons of Arctic experience (I do not profess 
now to quote the exact words, but that is the tenor), who in- 
formed him, among them Lieutenant Garlington ; and he cites 
from Lieutenant Garlington as follows: **The ultimate result 
of any undertaking to go north at this time extremely problem- 
atical" — that is, Sej^tember 15 — "chances against its success, 
owing to dark nights now begun in those regions, making ice- 
navigation extremely critical work." Will you state some of 
the grounds upon which you based your judgment in that letter, 
that the authorities from whom the Secretary of War derived his 
information were mistaken as to the navigation of those northern 
seas in September and in October ? A. From the general know- 
ledge and experience of Arctic navigators in that region, and 
frequent examples where ships had gone from St. John's to Lit- 
tleton Island or to Cape York after September 15. 

Q. How late ? A. After the 15th of September, and even 
into October. 

A member of the Court — It seems to me we are going a lit- 
tle further into that matter than is necessary. 

The President (to the counsel for the accused) — Will you 
suspend a moment ? There is an objection on the part of a 
member of the Court that we are going in that direction further 
than it is warranted. 

Mr. Mackey — I require no further answer on that point. 
I just wanted to meet the imputation of foolhardiness, that was 
all. (To the witness :) Please state whether you intended, in 
any part of your annual report for the year 1884, referred to in 
the second specification cited, to criticise or impugn the Secre- 
tary of War. A. I did not. 

Q. Please state whether in your letter of February 17, 
1885, you intended, in any part thereof, to criticise or impugn 
the Secretary of War, or attribute to him a neglect of duty as 
Secretary of War. A. I did not. 

Q. Do you admit or deny that you used the language con- 
tained in the Evening Star of the 2d instant in a paragraph en- 



198 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

titled ''The G-reeley Disaster — Throwing the Blame upon the 
Secretary of War " ? A. I deny the portion which you have 
cited. 

Q. Did you utter any language to that reporter with a yiew 
to publication ? A. I did not. 

Mr. Mackey — That is all, unless General Hazen thinks of 
some other matter he wishes to state. 

The WiTi^ESS — I do not. 

Cross-examination, 

By the Judge- Adyocate : 

Q. You have stated in your examination-in-chief that, dur- 
ing the interval between writing the letter and its being sent 
to the Secretary of War, it was in your possession or in the pos- 
session of your Adjutant for record. A. Yes. 

Q. Can you explain or give the reasons why that letter was 
detained nine days before it was delivered to the Secretary of 
War — that is, from the 17th to the 26th ? A. I have no special 
explanation, only that it came back to my office, to my especial 
desk, after the Adjutant had taken such record as was neces- 
sary ; and it was not a matter of routine, but it was more of a 
matter in which I had a personal interest, and I detained it in 
my desk some days before it was sent, for no special reason ex- 
cept that I wanted to look it over and become thoroughly con- 
versant with everything that was in it, and for several days it 
passed beyond my attention. 

Q. You regarded the letter as a very important one, did you 
not? A. I did. 

Q. Is it usual for you to keep such letters nine days after 
their composition ? A. I always keep them as long as I feel 
any need to keep them, and thoroughly look them over and di- 
gest them in my mind. It may not be nine days, and may be 
more than nine days. 

Q. Is it the practice in your office to retain letters of such 
an important character for nine days or so before they are sub- 
mitted to the authority to whom they are addressed ? Is that 
the general practice of the office ? A. That is an unusual letter. 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAKTIAL. 199 

Q. Be kind enough to answer my question, and you can 
make an explanation afterwards. A. I can only reply as be- 
fore : that I always keep them until I am thoroughly satisfied 
to send them. 

Q. But my question is susceptible of a categorical answer. 
Is it the usual practice in your office to do so or not ? Please 
answer the question as put, yes or no, and then afterwards you 
can make an explanation. 

Mr. Mackey — May it please the Court, the question is not 
entire. It must relate to letters of that class. The witness 
must be asked as to whether it was his practice to keep letters 
of that class. 

The Peesident — He may add that explanation when he an- 
swers the question. 

The Judge-Advocate — That is exactly what I desire. 

The Witness — I would say that it was ; this being, perhaps, 
the only letter of that special kind that I ever did write. 

Q. You do not understand the drift of my question. I mean 
whether it was the usual practice in your office to retain impor- 
tant letters, or letters on important subjects, for eight or nine 
days in your office before sending them to the Secretary of 
War ? A. Oh ! no, it is not. 

Q. That is what I meant to say. A. No, sir, it is not. 

Q. When did you make your application to go Soutli, before 
you wrote that letter or afterwards ? A. I do not recollect. It 
was some time after I wrote the letter. I think the two letters 
went over the same day. 

Q. About the 26th of February, then ? A. Probably. And 
I wish to explain at the proper time the reason they happened 
to go over the same day. 

Mr. Mackey — Please explain that in reply. 

The Judge-Advocate — When I come to it I will ask him, 
or you can, in the re-direct examination, bring that out if I 
should forget it. But I am examining him now. (To the wit- 
ness :) Did you state, in your letter applying for leave to go 
South, when you desired to go ? A. No, I did not. 

Q. You stated you intended to go about March 14. You 
stated that in one of your answers to the counsel ? A. Yes, sir. 



200 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

Q. Will you be kind enough to state to the Court the ne- 
cessity for making application so early for leave to go South ? 
A. Because my family was going with me, and it required con- 
siderable preparation, and we wanted to know whether I was 
going or not. 

Q. Had you been in the habit, in other cases, of making ap- 
plications to go so many days ahead as you did in this case ? 
A. Always, when there was as much preparation. 

Q. Be kind enough to answer my question, and make your 
explanation afterwards. Had you been in the habit of making 
application so many days ahead in other cases as in this case ? 
A. I think I had. 

Q. It was usual with you, then ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. To make application sixteen days ahead ? A. No, I will 
change that. It is not usual. But I will state afterwards that 
in such cases it was usual. 

Q. That is, when the family were going with you ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. What action was taken on your application to go South ? 
A. It was returned to me with the endorsement — 

Mr. Mackey (interposing) — If the endorsement is in writ- 
ing, that would be the best evidence. 

Q. What was the purport of the answer ? A. It was, if I 
would hand it in again ten days later it would receive action. 

Q. Do I understand you correctly to say that you did not 
state the date of your departure in your letter ? A. No. 

Q. You have had no personal experience as to Arctic explo- 
rations, have you ? A. ISTo. 

Q. Then whatever experience you may have in matters of 
that character you gather from literature and the statements of 
others ? A. I get it from a very great deal of study upon that 
subject and direct interviews with a great many Arctic explorers. 

Q. When you saw Mr. Kauffmann at the Ebbitt House here 
about the 1st or 2d of March, had you not known him before to 
be a reporter of the Star f A. I had. 

Q. You knew his character and his duties ? A. I knew him 
to be a man of good character. 

Q. I mean the character of his employment ? A. Oh ! yes. 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 201 

Q. His meeting, you say, was casual and in a kind of a 
hurry ? A. There was a great crowd there, and he accosted 
me before I had seen him. I do not know how much of a 
hurry he was in ; I was in a hurry. 

Q. You were in a hurry ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did the interview, or rather the conversation, with Mr. 
Kauffmann become thoroughly impressed upon your mind ? 
A. Pretty well. 

Q. There was quite a large crowd of people there, you say ? 
A. Yes. 

Q. Do you mean to say that you remember the exact words 
that you used on that, occasion ? A. Very nearly the exact 
words. 

Q. Very nearly, but not the exact words ? A. Those that I 
have already given as exact in the testimony I remember. 

Q. Only those, not the others ? A. I cannot remember all 
the words I said. There are certain words which he says that I 
said that I did not say. 

Q. Do you remember distinctly word for word or the exact 
words of what he said ? A. No. 

Q. You do not ? A. Only so far as I have given them. 
The questions which were asked me I do recollect perfectly 
well, or so far as I have given them in my testimony. 

Q. You say that, in some parts of Mr. Kauffmann's writing 
or article, he gave your language in substance, in some parts 
only. Now, as a matter of fact, does not the entire article 
state the substance and tenor of the whole interview ? A. That 
depends entirely upon the construction of those words. There 
were certain expressions, very material, which I did not use. 
I did not use the name of the Secretary of War, nor of any 
other person. It all referred to the same subject as given. 

Q. It all referred to the same subject. You mean, then, to 
disclaim the words " Secretary of War" — that you did not tell 
the reporter that you wrote to the Secretary of War ? A. I 
disclaim that. 

Q. Did not his question embrace an inquiry as to whether 
you had written to the Secretary of War or not ? A. I do not 
recollect. 



202 THE HAZEN" COUET-MABTIAL. 

Q. Taking this question and your answer together^ would 
not those two together make it appear as though you had re- 
plied that you had written a letter to the Secretary .of War ? 
A. The reference was in some way made to the Secretary of 
War. 

Q. By him ? A. Yes, sir. But my reply was, it referred 
to a letter I had written regarding the decision. 

Q. Did you not say, ^' I did write such a letter " — did you not 
say that or words of similar import ? A. No; I said I did Avrite 
a letter. 

Q. Did he not ask you whether you had not written a letter 
to the Secretary of War before you answered ? A. I do not re- 
member at this moment distinctly whether he named the Secre- 
tary of War or not. But it all referred to that one letter. 

Q. That is what I am trying to get at. It all referred to 
that letter ? A. Yes, it all referred to that letter. There was 
no other letter in controversy at all. 

Q. It all related to that one letter you wrote to the Secretary 
of War of February 17 ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Judging from your testimony in general, then, you fre- 
quently addressed the Secretary of War, not only in writing 
but also verbally, upon the matter of Arctic expeditions ? 
A. Oh ! yes, sir. I had a great many occasions to address 
him personally and by letter on that subject. 

Q. From that it would" seem that the Secretary of War had 
jurisdiction of that matter, would it not ? 

Mr. Mackey — That is a question of law, may it please the 
Court, that he is not to express his opinion uj)on. 

The Judge- Advocate — We will leave it as it is. 

Mr. Mackey — His legal opinion cannot be asked. 

The Judge-Advocate — I am simply trying to find out from 
the accused, when he addressed the Secretary of War, whether 
he waa the proper person. That is the import of my ques- 
tion. 

Mr. Mackey — As to the matter on which he addressed him, 
but not as to the whole matter. That is a question of law. 

The Judge- Advocate — I insist upon my question. 

Mr. Mackey — I ask that the question be made more specific. 



THE HAZET^ COUET-MARTIAL. 203 

The PKESiDEiTT — The question is. Shall the objection of tlie 
accused to the question be sustained ? 

Mr. Mackey — I beg leave to state to the Court that the 
Court ruled that the defence could not show by evidence that 
the Secretary of War had no jurisdiction. The defence have 
been denied the privilege of showing that he had no juris- 
diction. 

A member of the Court — Perhaps the question can be so 
modified as not to be objectionable. 

The Peesidei^t — That is a question for the Judge-Advocate. 

The Judge- Advocate — I do not desire to amend it, may it 
please the Court. 

A vote was then taken by ballot. 

The Judge-Advocate — I am directed by the Court to an- 
nounce as its decision that the objection of the accused is not 
sustained. 

Tlie question was then read by the reporter as follows : 

Q. From that it would seem that the Secretary of War had 
jurisdiction of that matter, would it not ? 

The Judge- Advocate — Please give a categorical answer, and 
you can make explanation afterwards. 

Mr. Mackey — Decline answering in that form, as your right 
to an improper question. In that particular form we submit 
to the Court that it is not an intelligible question. He is asked 
to concur with the Judge- Advocate in that particular form of 
question. I had not before observed the form of the question. 
He is asked, '^From that it would seem that he had jurisdic- 
tion?" 

The Judge- Advocate — "Would it not ? " 

Mr. Mackey — He is called upon to decide a question of ju- 
risdiction instead of being asked whether he then regarded him 
as having a jurisdiction upon the matter upon which he con- 
curred with the Secretary of War. 

The Judge-Advocate — Mr. President, it is hardly proper to 
discuss a decision of the Court after it has been rendered. 

Mr. Mackey — I do not mean that, but I just heard that 
question in that form, and I do not see how he can answer it 
in that form. 



204 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

The Judge-Advocate — But the intent of my question is, 
Would it not seem to him, from his own action, that the Secre- 
tary of War had jurisdiction ? That is the import of the ques- 
tion, and I think it is hardly necessary to quarrel with the de- 
cision of the Court. 

The question was again read to the witness by the reporter 
as follows : 

Q. From that it would seem that the Secretary of War had 
jurisdiction of that matter, would it not ? A. It would. I 
think that requires a little explanation. 

Q. Xow you can make the explanation. A. The question 
of his jurisdiction was spoken of on several occasions during the 
four years, but it never took any practical shape. I observed 
the Secretary's orders with all the loyalty possible, as if such 
questions had never been thought of, and it has never come up 
with me for any practical purpose. It was spoken of several 
times technically whether the Secretary of War had authority 
or not under the statute. But in a practical way the question 
was never entertained for a moment in my office. 

Q. Then I understand you to say that the jurisdiction of the 
Secretary of War in these matters was never denied by you ? 
A. No, never. 

Q. That was what I was trying to get at originally. And 
because that jurisdiction was never denied by you, you ad- 
dressed that letter of February 17, 1885 ; was it for those rea- 
sons also ? A. That question was never thought of in connec- 
tion with that letter. 

Q. Was not your official report of 1883 and 1884 published 
throughout the country ? A. I presume they were. Eeports 
of that kind usually are so published. 

Q. They are published generally ? A. They are given out 
whenever the Secretary of Way gives his assent. They are 
never given out by the bureaus, at least by my bureau, until 
after the Secretary of War has received them, and, after a time, 
he has given them out himself and given me special authority 
to do it. 

Q. And then they are disseminated throughout the country 
by your bureau ? A. Oh ! no. They are sent throughout the 



THE HAZEI^ COURT-MAKTIAL. 205 

country to our own stations. We have a large number of sta- 
tions. They get a few copies, and any one applying for them 
gets them. 

Q. Do they go to the public prints also ? A. If they are 
called for. They are usually called for at the Secretary's of- 
fice. He is given a large number of copies, and that is the 
usual course of getting them for the press. I ought to state, 
in continuation of the answer about giving out the reports, that 
the report which is animadverted upon by the Secretary of War 
was in fact given out by himself many days before I gave it 
out. 

Q. How do you know that ? A. Because there were none 
given from my office with the exception — 

Q. Do you know from your own knowledge that it was so 
given out ? A. I know it was given out of those that were sent 
him. 

Q. How do you know it ? A. Because they were published 
in the public prints. 

Q. Is that the only reason why you know it ? A. That is 
the only reason why I know it. 

Q. You were not present when they were given out ? A. No, 
sir. 

Q. You only judge so from the fact that you saw some of 
them in the public prints ? A. No ; from the fact that all the 
reports that we gave out were given to him, and before any 
others were given out they were printed in the public press. 

Q. Then it is not any direct knowledge you have of the mat- 
ter; you only judge from circumstances ? A. Only as I have 
told you. 

Q. What was the date of Lieutenant Garlington's return ? 
A. To St. John's— the 13th of September. 

Q. Is it not a fact that you make complaint in your letter of 
February 17, 1885, and did you not say in that letter of Febru- 
ary 17, 1885, that a " ship of rescue should have been dispatch- 
ed from St. John's after the return of Lieutenant Garlington 
to that port, or as late as September 15, 1883, as urged by me, 
but not adopted by the Secretary of War" ? Is not that your 
language ? A. The letter speaks for itself. 



206 THE IIAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

Q. I ask, Is that your language ? A. AU that is in that let- 
ter is my language. 

Q. That language, I ask you, is in that letter, is it not ? 
A. I will read it : 

*' The Secretary of War, in his annual report for the year 1884, was 
pleased to make me the subject of severe strictures because, in my official 
report of the final disaster to the International Polar Expedition, I ex- 
pressed the conviction that such disaster would have been averted had a 
ship of rescue been dispatched from St. John's, N. F., after the return of 
Lieutenant Garlington to that port, or as late as September 15, 1883, as 
urged by me, but not adopted by the Secretary of War." 

That was my letter. 

Q, Now, it appears from that letter you asked to have a ship 
sent up as late as September 15, 1883. You state that Lieu- 
tenant Garlington came back on the 13th. That makes a dif- 
erence of two days, does it not ? How do you reconcile that 
statement with your statement in your examination-iu-chief 
that you had not asked the Secretary of War to send a relief 
expedition, and fit out a relief expedition within two days ? 
How do you reconcile these facts with your testimony that 
you have given in your examination-in-chief ? A. Where do 
you get the contradiction that you refer to ? 

Q. You state here in your letter: ^^I expressed the convic- 
tion that such disaster would have been averted had a ship of 
rescue been dispatched from St. John's, N. F., after the return 
of Lieutenant Garlington to that port, or as late as September 
15, 1883, as urged by me, but not adopted by the Secretary of 
War." Now, you state that Lieutenant Garlington returned on 
the 13 th ? A.' Yes. 

Q. You also state in your examination-in-chief that you had 
not asked the Secretary of War to dispatch a relief ship for 
Lieutenant Greely within two days after the return of Lieu- 
tenant Garlington. Be kind enough to reconcile that contra- 
diction. 

Mr. Mackey — He does not so state. 

The Judge-Advocate — The record will show. 

Mr. Mackey — He was asked whether he had made any re- 
quirement of the Secretary of War, or demand that he should 



THE ITAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 207 

fit out a relief expedition in two da3^s, not that he should dis- 
2mtch one. Fitting out is one thing, and to give the order for 
it to sail is another. And if you will read there you will see 
what he was asked. 

The Presidei^t — Let the witness answer. 

The Witness — I do not see any discrepancy. The general 
tenor of my wishes was that a ship should be sent at once, not 
requiring more than two days to take in the absolute necessa- 
ries for Mr. Greely ; that is, that it should take on some food and 
clothing and such stores as could be picked up at once, the ship 
already being coaled there, and five of them in the harbor of St. 
John's, not spending more than two days for that purpose. I 
did not intend to state that I had made a special requirement 
that the ship should get off in two days, although I did think 
that two days was all that ought to be spent in taking on the 
supplies that she should take. 

The Judge-x\dvocate — Mr. President, it is now fifteen 
minutes of three o'clock, and I find I am considerably ham- 
pered and delayed in conducting the cross-examination of the 
accused to its conclusion without a ready reference to the record. 
It is only fifteen minutes of the time of our usual adjourn- 
ment, and, if the Court will be kind enough to now adjourn and 
give me this opportunity, I shall to-morrow be able to proceed 
more rapidly than I conld do now. To-day's record will tlien 
be transcribed, and I can refer to it easily. Therefore I ask the 
Court to be kind enough to adjourn until to-morrow. 

Tlie PRESiDEiq"T— If there is no objection tlie request of the 
Judge- Advocate will be acceded to and the Court will adjourn 
until to-morrow morning at eleven o'clock. 

Thereupon, at 2.47 p.m., the Court adjourned until to-mor- 
row, Wednesday, March 18, 1885, at 11 o'clock a.m. 



SEVENTH DAY. 



Rooms of the Gejteral OogRT-MARTiAL, 

Ebbitt House, WASHii^GTOiq-, D. C, 

Wednesday, March 18, 1885, 11 a.m. 

The Court met pursuant to adjournment. 

Brigadier- General William B. Hazein" then resumed the 
witness-stand, and his cross-examination was continued as fol- 
lows : 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Q. Do you recollect the date of your application for leave to 
go South ? A. 'No, I do not. 

Q,. Are you quite sure that you sent it to the Secretary of 
War on the same day that you sent your letter of February 17? 
A. No, sir ; I am not sure at all. It was about that time. I 
think it was the same day. 

Q. You are sure ifc was not after the day the letter of Feb- 
ruary 17 was sent, or before ? A. No, I would not say positive- 
ly as to that. 

Q. Why did you wait so long in writing that letter of Febru- 
ary 17 — why did you keep it until near the close of the last ad- 
ministration, within a few days of its expiration ? A. It had 
no reference to its being near the close of. any administration. 
I kept it because I wanted to make some changes in it, and be- 
cause I wanted to read it over ; and then after it was finished 
it lay on my desk for several days without my thinking of it, 
without its coming to my notice at all. Then on the 25th I 
cleaned up my desk — that is to say, I went through all the 
papers that were on it. I will say that I have a very busy desk, 
and the matters that are not routine pass from day to day, and 



THE IIAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 209 

then after a few days I always make it a custom to clean up my 
desk and get everything off. And then that happened on that 
day, and these papers that were not special, and were not rou- 
tine, came before me. That was wliat caused it, nothing else. 

Q. Was not that question of writing the letter on your trip 
South discussed by you with some of your officers ? A. 'Not 
witli any. I wrote it myself, and sent it out to the clerk to be 
copied. 

Q. It was not discussed with any of them ? A. Not to my 
recollection. 

Q. Not witli Lieutenant Pursell? A. Not to my recollection. 

Q. Or with any one ? A. Not to my recollection, and I am 
quite certain that it was not. 

Q. Did you indicate to any of your officers that you intended 
to be absent when that letter was sent to the Secretary of War ? 
A. No, I do not think I did, for I have no recollection of any- 
thing of that kind. 

The Judge- Advocate — I have no further questions to ask 
the accused. 

Redirect Examination. 

By Mr. Mackey : 

Q. You were asked whether you did not admit the jurisdic- 
tion of the Secretary of War as to the matters as to which you 
conferred with him. Did you ever confer with him as to his 
jurisdiction in the matter of sending out an expedition to the 
Arctic seas ? A. That question was never raised at all at any 
time by anybody. 

Q. You were asked about your retaining the letter in question 
for nine days. You have explained that in part. Please state 
whether you retained it in its t3^pe- written form, as it now is, or 
whether you retained it in manuscript. A. Most of the time 
in manuscript. 

Q. For what purpose did you retain it ? Was it a clear copy 
in manuscript when you retained it? A. No; I retained it, as I 
stated before, for the purpose of reading it, correcting it, and 
changing it — that is, a portion of the time, and a portion of the 
time it remained without my observation. 



210 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

Q. Please state whether during that nine days you did make 
any changes in the manuscript. A. Oh ! yes, I made very 
many. 

Q. State, if you can, how long you retained it in your pos- 
session, how many days, after it had been copied by the type- 
writer in its present form. A. That I do not remember, but I 
think hardly any time ; a very few days. 

Q. Can you say that you retained it as many as three days ? 
A. I think not, but I am not positive about it. 

Q. It is dated February 17, and the accuser in this case 
states in his endorsement that he received it on the 26th. 
Please state how many holidays intervened, if you can, when no 
work was done at your office, between the 17th of February and 
the 26th of February. A. Counting Sundays, I think there 
were four. 

Q. Do you recollect the day of the week that the 17th fell 
on ? A. 'No, sir ; I do not. 

The Judge- Advocate — The 22d was Sunday. That is ad- 
mitted. 

The WiTKESS — And the 21st was given also for a holiday, 
and the 25th was three, and Sunday was four. 

Q. Four holidays between the 17th and the 26th ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Were there an linusual number of holidays in that period ? 
A. There were, to the great detriment of the office work. 

Q. And four, you think, were embraced in the period be- 
tween the 17th and the 26th ? A. I think so. 

Q. Do you admit that the statement of the Secretary of War 
is correct that he received that letter not until the 26th of 
February? A. No. The receipt-book found this morning shows 
that it was received on the 25th. 

Mr. Mackey — We have the receipt-book. If the Court will 
dispense with the necessity of calling an officer from his desk 
at the Signal Office, we will show that. The Adjutant may be 
called, unless the Judge-Advocate will admit it. I will submit 
it to him. It is the official receipt-book sli owing the date of 
transmission of letters from the Signal Bureau to the Secretary 
of War and to others. (The counsel handed the book in ques- 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 211 

tion to the Judge- Advocate.) We submit the receipt-book as 
to the date at which this letter referred to in the third specifica- 
tion was transmitted from the Signal Bureau to the Secretary of 
War. Under date of February 25, 1885, it reads as follows : 

"Submits for record the evidence to support the correctness of his 
judgment in recommending a ship to be sent in September, 1883, after re- 
turn of Lieutenant Garlington." 

That is the entry. It is important also for another purpose. 

The Judge- Advocate— Read the receipt. Who signed it ? 

Mr. Mackey— It is signed W. 0. Costin, I think. 

The Witness — It is the signature of the receiyer. 

Mr. Mackey — Under the head of ^'Signature of the Re- 
ceiver," the receiver of the two papers transmitted above is 
Fletcher, and then follows W. 0. Costin. 

The Judge- Advocate — I have no doubt the record states 
what they have read. I do not deny that. 

Mr. Mackey — I ask the reporter to take this entry down. 
It is as follows : 

"Submits for record the evidence to support the correctness of his 
judgment in recommending a ship to be sent in September, 1883, after re- 
turn of Lieutenant Garlington." 

Do you admit, Mr. Judge- Advocate, that that relates to that 
letter ? If not, we will summon the officer. 

The Judge-Advocate —I have made all the admissions I 
am going to make. I have stated that I have no doubt that 
that is the record, and that it reads as stated by the counsel. 

Mr. Mackey — We will connect that and show that it re- 
lates to this very question. We will do that at the proper 
time. (To the witness :) So there were not nine days interven- 
ing between the date of that letter and the date of its receipt 
at the War Department ? A. That makes it eight. 

Q. And how many of those were office days, from the date 
of the letter to the date of its transmission ? A. Four or five. 

Q. Four or five office or working days intervened ? Accord- 
ing to the usual course of affairs as known to you, what time 
elapsed between the date of the transmission of that letter to 



212 . THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

the Secretary of War and the date on which he would go out of 
office as Secretary of War ? A. It would be nine days, sup- 
posing he went out of office the day after the 4th of March. 

Q. He would have nine days to act upon that letter ? Did 
you intend in any form to shun any responsibility attaching to 
the transmission of that letter ? A. None whatever. 

Q. Did you expect that letter to be followed by your arrest ? 
A. I did not. 

Q. State whether, after you had prepared that letter, you 
transmitted to the War Department any application for leave, 
official leave — not after you transmitted the letter, but after 
you had written it. A. After I had written it I did. It was 
not an application for a leave, but it was an application to do 
certain duty in the South. 

Q. Inspection duty ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long before the date of the transmission of the 
letter, if you can recollect ? A. I cannot recollect that. I do 
not know whether it was before or after. It was about that 
time, and I think the letter was sent the same day, because, as 
I stated before, it was the day I cleaned up my desk. But it 
was not due to that fact ; the letters have no relation to each 
other. 

Q. You were asked by the Judge- Advocate as to your spe- 
cial knowledge in regard to the matter of Arctic expeditions. 
State whether you are a member of any scientific body concern- 
ed with Arctic discovery. A. I am a member of the Interna- 
tional Polar Commission, composed of one person from each of 
the chief Northern nations of the world. 

Q. Do you know how many nations are represented in that 
congress ? A. I think there are ten. 

Q. Is the membership a merely honorary one, or is it com- 
posed of men having knowledge of the requirements of Arctic 
work, and who have been engaged in the study of it ? A. Pure- 
ly of the latter class of men, its purpose being to work in har- 
mony with regard to certain Polar problems. 

Q. You were cross-examined as to the Secretary of War 
himself disseminating your report for 1884. Is that suscep- 
tible of proof ? A. It is. The report reached me at the city of 



THE HAZE]?T COUET-MARTIAL. 213 

Cheyenne, in Wyoming Territory. The telegraph operator came 
into the car and reported to me that my report referring to 
Arctic expeditions was then going over the wires. I then felt 
a great deal of apprehension, fearing that some one had gotten 
into my office and given it out without authority, inasmuch as I 
told the Secretary of War that it should be kept under lock and 
key until he saw fit to send it out. And when I got to Salt 
Lake City I made special inquiry as to how it happened. And 
then, after my return, I learned that it was first put out by the 
Secretary of War from his office. 

The Judge- Advocate — I object, Mr. President, to any 
hearsay testimony. 

Mr. Mackey — It is a circumstance which the Court may 
weigh as a basis for the conclusion which the witness has stated 
— the basis of his information. He has stated that he did not 
give it out from his bureau before it was issued from the War 
Department, and he states that circumstance. 

The President — Let the question be read. 

The reporter read the question as follows : 

Q. You were cross-examined as to the Secretary of War him- 
self disseminating your report for 1884. Is that susceptible of 
proof ? 

The Judge- Advocate — I wish to state simply this : It is 
a well-known fact that all public documents are sent around 
through the country and generally disseminated. But I object 
to the inference which comes from the testimony of the witness 
that the special report was published at an earlier date and on 
an extraordinary occasion — that is, that it was not published in 
the ordinary routine of the War Department, as other reports 
are published. As to that fact the accused cannot testify except 
as to matters that he knows of his own knowledge, not what 
other people told him. Hearsay is not admissible. 

The Preside?;!"! — Your objection, then, is to the answer ? 

The Judge-Advocate — Yes, sir ; to the admission of hear- 
say testimony on the subject. 

Mr. Mackey — The witness had previously stated that the 
obnoxious report of the Chief Signal Officer assailed by the 
Secretary of War had been first issued immediately from the 



214 \ THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

War Department and not from the Signal Office, and that was 
stated without objection. He was cross-examined as to that 
statement, and he simply stated the ground of his statement. 
That is all ; he states the grounds of it. It had already come 
out in the previous answer. 

The PEESiDEiq-T — The defence seems to think it important 
that the whole question should be answered. 

Mr. Mackey — I do not wish to be forced to place the late 
Secretary of War on the witness-stand, but I may be forced to 
do it. 

The Peesidekt — If there is no request on the part of any 
member of the Court to consider this matter in closed session, 
the witness may make his answer. 

The Judge- Advocate— I would like the decision of the 
Court on my objection. 

The Peesidei^t — There is a decision of the Court on your 
objection. It is already decided. 

The Judge- Advocate — It is not sustained ? 

The Peesidei^t — It is decided that the witness may answer 
the question. 

A member of the Court — The answer is already recorded. 

The Peesidei^t — Yes, the answer is recorded as far as the 
witness has gone. He may make any explanation necessary. 

Q. That is the ground of your belief ? A. Yes, that is the 
ground of my belief. I only make the answer as the ground of 
my belief. 

Q. You answered in cross-examination as to your sense of 
obligation to the men who were in the Arctic. From what did 
that sense of obligation spring in your mind which controlled 
your action ? A. From my official duty ; and, further than that, 
from my obligation to these officers and men who went out to 
the Arctic. They went out as men entering water beyond their 
depth, with the absolute promise, implied and expressed, that 
they were to be relieved, and I was ready and anxious to do all 
in my power to give them the most absolute relief in any and 
every possible way that I could. 

Q. You have stated that previously. I thought it was some 
special matter you desired to speak of. You were questioned as 



THE HAZEjS^ court-maktial. 215 

to your alleged requirement that the Secretary of "War should 
organize and equip an expedition in two days. Did you expect 
or demand that he should organize and equip an expedition at 
all in the sense of those terms ? A. Not in that sense at all. 
What I wished was implied in my telegram, one of the telegrams 
in evidence — that he, by telegram, should authorize at St. John's 
the employment of a ship to depart at once, to be dispatched 
without loss of time ; and I laid a limit to the time at which, in 
my opinion, it would be necessary to delay the ship : it would 
be for two days; that the limit should not extend beyond two 
days. 

Q. Please recall your demand. Did you state what prepara- 
tion, or if any preparation, was required by your plan ? A. The 
telegram would speak upon that. 

The Judge- Advocate — Mr. President, I am sorry that I am 
obliged to object, but there is no such telegram in evidence that 
I know of. 

Mr. Mackey — No ; it was excluded, and we are not putting 
that in evidence. 

The Judge- Advocate — You are seeking to put it in evi- 
dence now w^iere it has been excluded once before. 

Mr. Mackey — The witness is questioned as to the require- 
ment which the witness said that he made of the Secretary of 
War. It is certainly competent, where that question arises, to 
show, either verbally or in writing, that the witness' requirement 
was that there should be no preparation at all made by the 
Secretary of War, in the sense in which the terms are used. 

The Witness — I can answer that. 

The President (to the Judge-Advocate) — Have you any 
further objection ? 

The Judge- Advocate — Counsel has dropped the subject, as 
I understand it. 

Q. I desire to call your attention to your last answer. In 
communicating on that subject did you say that the Secretary 
of War should authorize the expenditure, or who should au- 
thorize it ? 

The Judge-Advocate — Wait one moment. That is only 
putting the thing in another form. The subject of his de- 



216 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

mands, and his communications to the Secretary of War on that 
subject, haye ah'eady been excluded by the Court, and I desire 
to invite attention to it. 

Mr. Mackey — Having been cross-examined as to the matter, 
I submit, may it please the Court, it is admissible for the wit- 
ness to show what he said and meant. Is it to be decided, or 
has it been decided, Mr. President, that the Secretary of War, 
the accuser, makes his statement, attaches his statement to a 
specification ; that it is admitted as proof or it is admitted as 
evidence to the point that the accused did make of the Secretary 
of War, in the letter referred to therein, the requirement that he 
should organize and equip an expedition in two days ; and the 
accused is not permitted to show that this is a misinterpretation 
both of his letter itself and his view as previously presented to 
the Secretary of War ? That his purpose was that no prepara- 
tion should be made in the city of Washington ; that his pur- 
pose was the sending of a single telegram to St. John's to start 
the ship that was ready at the wharf, only needing provisions — 
that is all that it is intended to show. 

And the further question now objected to, may it please the 
Court, is, that I ask the witness to recur to the statement just 
made by him without objection. The witness states what his 
telegrams will contradict — that he desired the Secretary of War 
to authorize an expedition. The telegram, if admitted, will 
show that the memory of the witness is at fault on that point ; 
that it was not the Secretary of War that he asked to authorize 
the expenditure, because the law regulates that, no appropria- 
tion existing for it. 

The Judge- Advocate — The language used by the Secretary 
of War in his endorsement is : 

"The present official expression of opinion to the effect that the failure 
of the Secretary of War to organize in two days and dispatch to the Arctic 
regions a new expedition," etc. 

The Peesidekt — Are those telegrams before the Court ? If 
so, a member desires to see them. 

The Judge- Advocate— No, sir ; they are not. They were 
excluded. 



^ ' THE HAZEN COUET-MARTIAL. 217 

A member of the Court — Are those the telegrams of which 
the dates are before the Court ? 

The JuD(&E- Advocate — I think the dates were spoken of in 
the statement They are the 21st and 22d of September. 

The Presidei^t — It has been suggested by a member of the 
Court that the inquiry be made of counsel how far it is intended 
to go in this matter. 

Mr. Macket — It is simply in reply to the cross-examination, 
to so much of the cross-examination as was directed to the point 
whether the accused had required the Secretary of War or had 
not required the Secretary of War to organize and equip a relief 
expedition in two days ; and he was examined at length on that 
point. This is simply the examination in reply, that is all, to 
show that what he asked was not the organizing and equipping 
of an expedition by the Secretary of War at all, but that what 
he asked required no preparation by the Secretary of War ; and 
to have the witness' attention also called to his answer as to 
a request of the Secretary of War to authorize an expedition. 
There was no fund for that purpose, and the Secretary of War 
had no such power ; and that would contradict the witness' own 
telegram, if it should come before the Court, which was that 
the appeal was to the President to authorize it, and not to the 
Secretary of War. 

The Judge- Advocate — The counsel had better go back a 
little further than that, in my opinion, and state the case as 
it really occurred. He raised the question in the examination- 
in-chief whether or not the accused had asked the Secretary of 
War to prepare and send out a relief expedition within two days. 
When it came to the cross-examination I simply called the wit- 
ness' attention to the contradiction between his answer given on 
that occasion and his own written letter, and that is all that I 
asked about. It was an explanation that I wanted of his ap- 
parent contradiction, and no more. I did not bring the sub- 
ject up. The other side brought it up in the direct examina- 
tion of the accused, and started it, and it was my business in 
the cross-examination to reconcile or inquire into the apparent 
contradictions, so that the Court might be enlightened about 
the matter. 



218 THE HAZEN COUET-MARTIAL. 

Mr. Macket — All I ask now is that the witness' attention 
should be called to the statement that the Secretary of War 
was appealed to for authority to send the expedition. I ask 
him whether he means that as correct — whether that is correct, 
that he applied to the Secretary of War for authority. He has 
a right to correct his testimony. 

The Peesident — If there is no objection the witness may 
answer the question. 

Mr. Mackey (to the witness) — What was your request in 
the premises ? A. My request was that the President be ap- 
plied to to authorize the expedition, there being no fund. He 
had to do it or some one had to do it. 

Q. The President had to do it ? A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Mackey — That is all on that point. This is new mat- 
ter that I propose, and it will be assumed that the witness is 
recalled, and he may be cross-examined. This is a statement of 
temperatures (exhibiting a paper). 

The Judge-Advocate — The recalling of the witness at this 
stage of the proceedings, before I have concluded or before the 
Court have concluded their examination, is rather an irregular 
procedure. Let the Judge- Advocate and the Court finish their 
examination, and then, if you desire to recall him, that will be 
another question. The present procedure as proposed by the 
counsel would be irregular. 

Mr. Mackey — By the rules governing the examination the 
Judge- Advocate can propound no more questions to this witness 
except by special leave of the Court. 

The Peesidekt — The witness cannot be recalled until he is 
dismissed, and the Court have a right to submit questions to 
him, as well as the Judge- Advocate. 

Mr. Mackey — Certainly. 

The Judge-Advocate (to the counsel for the accused) — 
Then is your redirect examination closed ? 

Mr. Mackey — It is. 

The Judge-Advocate — Somewhat of contradiction having 
appeared as to the date of the receipt of the letter by the Sec- 
retary of War, I simply wish to propound one question to 
clear that up. (To the witness:) This is the letter you sent to 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAKTIAL. 219 

the Secretary of War, is it ? (handing the original letter in 
evidence to the witness). A. It is. 

The Judge-Advocate — I call the attention of the Court to 
the fact that this letter is before it in evidence, and on the top 
of the document it is stated, " War Department, received Feb- 
ruary 26, 1885." 

Mr. Mackey — That is in the office of the Secretary of War, 
is it not, Mr. Judge- Advocate ? 

The Judge- Advocate — I am reading exactly what the lan- 
guage is here. You must interpret it yourself. 

Mr. Mackey — Certainly. We are disproving that to show 
that an incorrect entry was made at the War Office, and, accord- 
ing to the receipt-book, we show it. 

The Judge- Advocate — I have no further questions to ask. 
Have the Court any questions to ask ? 

The President — Yes, I understand a member of the Court 
desires to ask a question. 

By the Court : 

Q. I would like to ask the witness, for the purpose of re- 
moving an apparent ambiguity from the record, this : He tes- 
tified yesterday that he procured at his own risk a ship to go 
to the Arctic regions. That referred, to the expedition of what 
year ? A. Of 1882. 

Q. And that it was desired to procure another in the same 
way ? A. That was the next year. 

Q. The regular expedition ? A. Not the regular one; after 
the regular one had failed. 

Q. And you were relieved of the necessity of that by an ap- 
propriation by Congress for the preceding year ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I would like to ask about the original draft of the letter 
to the Secretary of War. What became of it after it was sent 
to the Adjutant for engrossment ? A. I do not know. I think 
it went into the waste, like other scraps. 

Q. Might that account for the otherwise unaccounted-for 
publication of the letter? A. It might do that. 

Mr. Mackey — I will recur to another matter. 

The Judge- Advocate — Has the Court concluded ? 



220 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

The pRESiDEiq'T — We have no further questions, I believe, to 
ask the witness. 

The accused, Brigadier-General William B. Hazen, at his 
own request, was then recalled. 

Mr. Mackey — We inquired of General Hazen as to the 
number of holidays that intervened between the date of the 
letter, the 17th of February, 1885, and the alleged date of its 
transmission to the War Department, February 26, and he 
answered that there were four. By reference to this almanac 
(handing an almanac to the witness) you may correct that state- 
ment, if you desire. A. There were but three. I make the cor- 
rection ; three was the number. 

Q. It is claimed or intimated by the prosecution that you 
transmitted the letter in evidence, which led to your arrest, to 
the Secretary of War on the 26fch of February, 1885, and at the 
same time, or about the same time, you transmitted an applica- 
tion for leave to go South, and that it was in order to escape the 
consequences of such letter or your being here. In other words, 
that it was a regular case of "fire and fall back." Can you 
state from that receipt-book (the receipt-book of the Signal 
Office) the date of the transmission of the letters to the War 
Department. Does that refer to your application for leave ? 
A. I do not know whether it does or not. 

Q. I will read the entry. 

The Judge- Advocate — There is no question about it. The 
prosecution admits that it was on the 19th that he sent his ap- 
plication for leave. 

Q. It was on the 19th, and you think yourself that it might 
have been on the very same day that you sent the letter ? A. 
Yes, probably. 

Mr. Mackey — I have just had my attention called to it, and 
I propose to present a statement furnished officially by Lieuten- 
ant Arthur W. Greely, United States Army, who command- 
ed the Lady Franklin Bay Expedition from 1881 to 1884, 
showing the temperatures at Cape Sabine in the month of Oc- 
tober, 1883. I submit to the Court that the annual report 
of the Secretary of War for 1884 is in evidence. That con- 



THE HAZElSr COURT-MARTIAL. 221 

tains a statement furnished by Captain Schley, United States 
Xavy, in which he states that the temperature at Disco, at 
Upernavik, and at Tessuisak, on the west coast of Greenland, 
was at 60° below zero in the month of September and October. 
The purpose of this table is to show that even a thousand miles 
north of Disco, seven hundred and twenty-five miles north of 
Upernavik, instead of its being 60° below zero, it was plus 25 — 
25 above zero — in the early part of October, and then down to 
the 27th of October it was only minus 16. 

That is responsive to the statement of the Secretary of War's 
annual report, which report is in evidence, and the late Secre- 
tary of War is the accuser. 

The Judge- Advocate — I would like to see that document. 
I do not know who is testifying — the counsel, the document, or 
the witness. 

Mr. Mackey — No one is testifying now, but there is an offer 
of the paper in testimony. 

The Judge-Advocate — You offer this paper in testimony? 

Mr. Mackey — Yes, with that explanation. 

The Judge- Advocate — Mr. President, in the first place this 
report of the Secretary of War was introduced by the defence 
as evidence. There is a v/ell-known rule of law, which I need 
scarcely mention here, that no one can contradict his own wit- 
ness. 'Now the accused comes in here and submits another 
document. In other words, he has set up, so to speak, a wooden 
man, in order to knock him down. He first comes in here 
with the report of the Secretary of War, brings it in as evi- 
dence, and now he turns around and tries to contradict it. He 
is contradicting his own witness. I do not think it necessary to 
cite authorities on that subject. 

Again, the document is not an original document, is not an 
office record. It is simply a document which shows for itself. 
At the bottom, over the signature, I presume, of Lieutenant 
Pursell, it says : '' A true extract from records on file in the 
Signal Office." How can Lieutenant Pursell come in here and 
testify by his signature to the records of the Signal Office ? 
We cannot accept that. The document is objected to on that 
ground. And the third ground of objection I make is that the 



223 THE HAZEl^ COUET-MAETIAL. 

whole subject is not relevant to the issue. I move, therefore, 
that it be not accej)ted. 

Mr. Mackey — May it please the Court, the official report of 
the Secretary of War is referred to in the specifications. It is 
treated in the endorsement of the letter ; it is brought into the 
case. The official report of the Secretary of War for 1884 is 
brought into the case by the official endorsement of the Secre- 
tary of War on the letter. We propose to contradict it. In 
the nature of the case we had to present the official report. We 
presented it. It entered the cause through the prosecution, 
however, being recited in the endorsement, and the learned 
Judge-Advocate is mistaken in the proposition that a party can- 
not contradict his own witness. The authorities all concur in 
laying down a contrary doctrine, that you can contradict your 
own witness. Says Greenleaf in section 443 : 

*'For where the witness is not one of the party's own selection, but is 
one whom the law obliges him to call, such as the subscribing witness to a 
deed, or a will, or the like, here he can hardly be considered as a witness of 
the party calling him ; and, therefore, as it seems, his character for truth 
may be generally impeached. But, however this may be, it is exceedingly 
clear that the party calling a witness is not precluded from proving the 
truth of any particular fact, by any other competent testimony, in direct 
contradiction to what such witness may have testified." 

That is the law of evidence laid down by Greenleaf, and also by 
Starkie and Phillips, which we have on these points. 

The Peesiden'T — It will not be necessary to argue the ques- 
tion any further. The Court will now retire for the determina- 
tion of the question before it, and after that matter has been 
disposed of it will take a recess until fifteen minutes past one. 

The members of the Court and the Judge-Advocate then re- 
tired to an adjoining room for deliberation with closed doors. 

After some time spent in deliberation with closed doors, and 
the recess having been taken, the Court resumed its session, all 
being present as before. 

The Judge- Advocate — I am directed by the Court to an- 
nounce that the objection of the Judge-Advocate to the recep- 
tion of the paper is sustained. 

I am further directed by the Court to state the following as 



THE HAZEN COURT-MABTIAL. 223 

its opinion : There is no question before the Court respecting 
the endorsement of the Secretary of War, except the fact that 
the accused received that endorsement. 

Mr. Mackey — It will be unnecessary to pursue that line, 
then. (To the witness :) Did you prepare the letter of the 17th 
of February, 1885, unaided by counsel ? A. I did not. 

Q. Will you state whether parts of that letter in which 
you were aided by counsel were objectionable to you or not ? 
A. They were. 

Q. Did you express your objection to your counsel as to any 
paragraph prepared by him for that letter? A. I did. 

Q. What did you say ? A. I expressed the fear that there 
might be some paragraphs or some special direction in the let- 
ter which might be construed as disrespectful to the Secretary 
of War, and I therefore took the letter myself and corrected it 
with that view. 

Q. You stated to the counsel that you thought the portion 
he prepared might have been regarded as disrespectful to the 
Secretary of War ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you reject that portion ? A. I did. 

Q. And in what direction did you change it ? A. I changed 
it so as to make it, as I understood it, entirely free from any re- 
flection or anything that might possibly be objectionable to the 
Secretary of War. 

Q. You changed it so that in your judgment it could not 
possibly be objectionable ? A. Yes, sir ; objectionable to the 
Secretary of War. 

Q. Do you recollect whether, on stating to counsel that cer- 
tain paragraphs framed by him might be deemed disrespectful, 
you referred to your own duty as an officer of the Army in ad- 
dressing the Secretary of War ? A. Please repeat the question ; 
I did not get it. 

Q. Will you state whether, in rejecting the paragraphs of 
the letter framed by couusel, you stated as a reason for reject- 
ing them your duty as an officer to treat the Secretary of War 
with respect ? A. I did. 

Q. Did your counsel concur in that idea ? A. He did. 

Q. I will ask you one more question. As to the whole mat- 



224 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

ter of your official report for 1884. the matter of your letter and 
the matter of the interview, whether you will state upon your 
oath, and upon your honor as an officer of the Army, that you 
did not intend disrespect to the Secretary of War ? A. I did 
not. 

Mr. Mackey — I have no further questions. 

The Judge- Advocate — I haye no further questions to ask 
the witness. Has the Court any, Mr. President ? 

The Peesidekt — None are indicated. The witness is dis- 
charged. 

Mr. Mackey — Call Lieutenant Pursell. (To the Court :) 
The purpose of calling Lieutenant Pnrsell is, that the entry in 
the receipt-book may be shown to relate to this letter. 

The Judge- Advocate — I have not summoned Lieutenant 
Pursell. 

Mr. Mackey — We have a right to a witness without sum- 
mons, if he is present. 

The Judge-Advocate — There is no objection to calling 
him. 

Mr. Mackey — He was here a few minutes before the recess. 
We have a right to a witness without summons, unless it re- 
moves an officer from his duties. 

The Judge- Advocate — There is no question about it, and 
there is no use of discussing it that I can see. 

Mr. Mackey (to the Judge-Advocate) — As to this point, 
will you let me have the letter, if you please ? We shall require 
a witness to be summoned, perhaps. The Judge- Advocate pre- 
sents the stamp of the War Department in these words, **War 
Department, received February 26," to prove that that was the 
date at which tlie Secretary of War received the letter. We 
shall desire a witness to be summoned (I will be furnished 
with his name in a few minutes) to show that the stamp does 
not relate to the receipt of the communication by the Secretary 
of War. That is the date of its receipt for record in the Ee- 
cord-Room at the War Department, but not its receipt by the 
Secretary of War. He might hold it for weeks before it was 
delivered for record. 

The Judge- Advocate— The entry speaks for itself. 



THE HAZEIT COUET-MAETIAL. 225 

The President — It is not necessarily that date. The rule 
is that it should be of that date, but it might be of some other 
date. 

Mr. Macket — Very well, we will produce evidence upon 
that point. 

The Peesidei^t — I think the Judge- Advocate might admit 
that. It is not a matter of importance. 

The Judge-Advocate — Mr. President, I cannot admit any- 
thing beyond or contrary to what the document itself states. 
The document is in evidence and speaks for itself. 

The Presidei^t — Exercise your own judgment in the matter. 

A member of the Court — There is only a difference of one 
day. 

Mr. Mackey — One day is very important sometimes. 

The Judge- Advocate — I should not at all object to admit- 
ting that the document was received perhaps on the evening of 
the 25th, was sent on the evening of the 25th to the War De- 
partment, and taken up next morning, and received by the Sec- 
retary of War and considered. I might admit that, but I can- 
not admit anything else. 

Mr. Mackey — We have sent for Lieutenant Pursell, in order 
not to delay the Court. (To the witness :) I have a further 
question to ask to show that it was not with reference to this 
Court-Martial that you consulted counsel. With reference to 
what matter did you have counsel, as stated in your examination 
a few moments ago ? A. With reference to the entire Greely 
Arctic expedition, believing that my request, in my early report, 
for a Congressional investigation would be granted. It was 
upon that subject. 

Q. It was in view of a probable investigation by Congress of 
the whole matter ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who was the counsel to whom you refer ? A. Mr. Mackey, 
the present counsel in this case. 

Mr. Mackey — That is all. 

The Judge-Advocate — To save further time, Mr. Presi- 
dent, I will admit the correctness of the record introduced here- 
tofore. 

Mr. Mackey — It was transmitted from the office on the 25th. 



226 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

The Judge- Advocate — I do not want to take up the time 
of the Court. 

Mr. Macket — The time of the day we do not know. Mr. 
President and gentlemen of the Court, I announce that the de- 
fence closes at this point. 

The JuDaE-ADYOCATE — You have no further witnesses to 
produce ? 

Mr. Mackey — We have not. 

The Judge-Advocate — Has the Court any questions to ask 
the witness ? I have none. 

The Pkesideht — We have none. 

The Judge-Advocate — I have no testimony to offer now in 
rebuttal. 

The Peesiden^t — What is proposed in reference to the argu- 
ment ? Is any proposition made that will interfere with the 
argument proceeding immediately ? 

The Judge- Advocate — I submit to the Court and to the 
counsel that I am perfectly willing to leave the case to the 
Court without argument, should the other 'side consent to do 
the same thing. 

Mr. Mackey — Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, 
the Judge- Advocate has heretofore kindly made that sugges- 
tion and given me ample time to consider it. But I think it 
due to the accused that, where the testimony has necessarily 
taken a wide range and occupied many days in its delivery, a 
proper construction of its true bearing should be submitted to 
the Court, and that argument should be made. I shall endeavor 
to be as brief as practicable. It is usual, I believe, that upon 
the close of the testimony counsel shall have time to examine 
it before presenting his argument, and I ask until to-morrow 
morning at eleven o'clock, at which time I will be prepared to 
enter upon the argument. 

Thereupon, at 1.38 p.m., the Court adjourned until to-mor- 
row, Thursday, March 19, 1885, at 11 o'clock a,m. 



EIGHTH DAY. 



EooMS OF THE Ge:n^eiial Court-Martial, 

Ebbitt House, WASHii^GTOJs-, D. C, 

Thursday, March 19, 1885, 11 A.M. 

The Court met pursuant to adjournment. 

AEGUMEifT OF JUDGE T. J. MACKEY, COUNSEL FOR GEiJeRAL 

HAZEN. 

Mr. Mackey said : Mr. President and gentlemen of the 
Court, this cause has passed through the various stages of ar- 
raignment, of plea, and of testimony, and it is now to be sub- 
mitted for judgment. It has often occurred in judicial tribu- 
nals that the principle involved in a cause is greater than the 
cause itself, the cause primarily affecting only the parties to the 
record. They are as fleeting as the leaf upon the current, but 
the principle is enduring. An error in its application may enter 
into the course of judicial administration in other like causes, 
and, being cited as a precedent, may inflict wrongs without 
remedy. 

Tills is a court-martial met to consider and determine upon 
a charge defined and to be interpreted by a military code. Yet 
it does not administer martial law, for martial law is but the 
arbitrary will of the military commander in time of war ; it is 
the unwritten code that dwells in the breast of the military 
chief. Although this court is composed of men of arms, men 
whose very presence and high rank recall the period, not far 
remote, when American soldiers aAvoke the world by the splendid 
tumult of their deeds, yet it must govern its proceedings by the 
rules of pleading and evidence laid down by jurists and enforced 
in the practice of civil courts. 

The accused arraigned at this bar does not stand under the 

• 227 



228 THE HAZElSr COUET-MAETIAL. 

shadow of the sword. All of his rights are held under the in- 
violable safeguard and the sacred majesty of the civic law, so 
far as rules of evidence and judicial tests applicable to plead- 
ings are regarded. 

Invoking those tests which the law applies to the pleadings 
and the evidence, I pass to their consideration, respectfully 
craving the patient indulgence of the Court while I endeavor 
to present them. 

The charge is, " Conduct to the prejudice of good order and 
military discipline in violation of the sixty-second Article of 
War." The specifications recite *^that the Secretary of War 
had, in the performance of his official duty, decided," etc. 

We submit to the Court, as matter of law, that there is a 
fatal defect of proof upon so much of the specification, l^o 
evidence has been adduced, no law cited, to establish the first 
allegation, that the Secretary of War was in the performance of 
his official duty when he decided as alleged. That allegation 
passes through all of the specifications. Indeed, it is the very 
golden chain from which the charge and the specifications, if 
they are supported at all, must hang. If that is broken the 
case falls. 

We judge a chain of iron, we test it, by the strength of its 
weakest link. We test a pleading by its strongest link. This 
is the strong link in the chain, that the Secretary of War was 
in the performance of his official duty. 

Is there any proof offered upon that point ? None. I need 
not cite authorities to satisfy the Court that where the allega- 
tion is that the officer to whom disrespect was shown was in 
the exercise of his office, they must establish it. That is a 
charge which specifically might be made in another class of 
cases, under the ninth Article of War, that he was in the exe- 
cution of his office, the term ^^ officer" meaning one entitled to 
military command, a commissioned officer. But the identical 
principle applies here, it being alleged that the Secretary of 
War in the performance of his official duty rendered the deci- 
sion. 

It is quite possible that the recital of the specification it- 
self might exhibit the fact of vvhicli a court-martial would 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 229 

take notice — that in the very nature of the case the Secretary of 
War was in the performance of his official duty. But neither 
the first specification, nor the second, nor the third relates to 
the exercise of functions touching the military establishment. 
That idea is negatived. The averment is in substance that the 
Secretary of War was in the performance of his official duty in 
deciding not to send a ship into the Arctic belt on the loth of 
September, 1883 ; that he was in the performance of his duty 
in that. 

Now, as that is a duty which does not inhere in the office of 
the Secretary of War, that does not spring from his legal func- 
tions as head of the War Department, as it is special if he had 
it, it must be proved. It becomes a material allegation. It has 
been dealt with as such, and it is the preamble to each andevery 
specification. Yet the proof is silent. The Court upon that 
point, it is true, can take notice of a public statute imposing 
upon the Secretary of War the duty to decide whether a relief 
ship shall be sent into the Arctic, and when and how it shall be 
dis23atched. But the Court will search in vain for any public 
statute imposing that duty. On the contrary, the statute, and 
the only statute, that defines the authority of any official of this 
government upon the question of originating Arctic expeditions, 
or acting in relation thereto, is the act of May 1, 1880, United 
States Statutes at Large, page 82, vol. xxi. There we read : 

"Be it enacted, etc., That the President of the United States be, and 
he hereby is, authorized to establish a temporary station at some point north 
of the eighty-first degree north latitude, on or near the shore of Lady 
Franklin Bay, for purposes of scientific observation and exploration, and to 
develop or discover new whaling grounds; to detail such officers or other 
persons of the public service to take part in the same as may be necessary, 
and who are willing to enlist for such purpose, not exceeding fifty in num- 
ber, and to use any public vessel or vessels that may be suitable for the pur- 
pose of transporting the members of said station and their necessary sup- 
plies, and for such other duty in connection with said station as may be 
required from time to time, etc." 

One of the duties required "from time to time" was to send 
relief to the expedition, and certainly the duty to rescue it in a 
period of great peril. And the President of the United States, in 



230 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

person, is charged with that duty. By his hand the order was 
signed which sent that expedition into unknown seas — by the 
order of one President who determined upon the expedition. 
His Excellency E B. Hayes ; and by the order of another, by his 
executive order, the commander of that expedition, the im- 
mortal Greely, was appointed by James A. Garfield, whose name 
seems destined for ever to be linked with tragedy, whose death 
united all Americans in the communion of a common sorrow. 
It was the act of the President. 

But the learned Judge- Advocate may state that when the 
Secretary of War acts it is presumably by direction of the 
President. I admit that the presumption attaches that when 
in the course of military administration the Secretary of War 
acts he is held to be the organ of the President. But that 
presumption does not attach where, under a special act of Con- 
gress having regard to scientific and commercial purposes, ex- 
plorations in Arctic seas for science, and the discovery of new 
whaling-grounds for commerce, the jurisdiction is vested spe- 
cially in the President ; and when the Secretary of War alleges 
that his, the Secretary of War's, decision is impugned, it must 
be shown affirmatively by the law that the jurisdiction vested in 
the Secretary of -War to decide. If the President had any dis- 
cretion under the law, and delegated to the Secretary of War the 
power to decide, the delegation of power, if it could be made 
under the statute, must be shown affirmatively. 

Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, on this point I 
am stating propositions that appear in the very horn-books of 
the law, in the very alphabet of juristic science, where the pro- 
position is laid down that a material allegation for the support 
of a charge having been made, it must be proved. And we call 
for proof in vain. 

But the specification proceeds (after reciting the decision of 
the Secretary of War that it was not practicable) that the Chief 
Signal Officer of the Army " did, in his official annual report 
as Chief Signal Officer, bearing date October 15, 1884, criticise 
and impugn the propriety thereof." What is '^the said official 
action '' ? The decision of the Secretary of War that it was not 
practicable to send a relief ship in September, 1883, to the Arc- 



THE HAZEN COUET-MARTIAL. 231 

tic — oflScial action dealing with ships, with a nautical expe- 
dition. 

Time was, may it please the Court, when this question pre- 
sented by the counsel as to the naval functions of the Secretary 
of War would not have been contested. The Court may take 
notice of the historic fact that until the year 1794 the naval 
administration of the United States was conducted under the 
direction of the Secretary of War, that all naval administra- 
tion was through and by him. But that was for a brief and 
exceptional period. That was the period marked by the ex- 
traordinary fact, on the other hand, that the commissary and 
quartermaster stores were always supplied the Army in that 
day through designated officers of the Treasury Department, 
and not by military agents. 

But the period that blended the functions of the Treasury 
Department with the War Department, and those of the War 
Department with the Navy Department, has passed away, and a 
naval expedition, a nautical enterprise, does not suggest a func- 
tion of the Secretary of War. 

Well, he impugned, it is charged — he did '^criticise the said 
official action of the Secretary of War, and impugn the pro- 
priety thereof." It is a question of proof as to whether the 
accused did, as alleged, criticise the action of the Secretary of 
War — not the Secretary of War ; whether he did impugn the 
propriety of the action — not that he impugned the action ; that 
is not alleged, but that he impugned the propriety. That is the 
curious language. That might be a question of proof. But the 
specification itself takes it out of the domain of testimony. 
For the accused admits that what is exhibited in the specifica- 
tion as the impugning and the criticising is a true extract from 
his official report, but denies that it contains the impugning 
and the criticising. 

What is the language ? This is what the accuser means by 
criticising and impugning. He defines the terms for himself. 
This is the language : 

** On the return of the escort ship bringing the relief party to St. John's, 
September 13, there was still time, as known from previous experience and 
shown by subsequent facts, to send eftsctive relief." 



232 THE HAZEIT COURT-MAETIAL. 

That is it, gentlemen of tlie Court. Now, what is the rule — 
the rule constantly enforced in coui^ts-martial ? 

I cite from the *' Digest of Opinions" of the Judge^ Advo- 
cate- General, page 46, at the foot of the page : 

*' It is immaterial in which form the charge is expressed, provided the 
specification sets forth facts constituting an act prima facie prejudicial to 
good order and military disciphne." 

That is, the specification in itself must show upon its face 
that if it be true that the accused did what is alleged in the 
specification, that then the charge of conduct to the prejudice 
of good order and military discipline is sustained. And this is 
all there is : " On the return of the escort ship," etc. 

Is there any criticising of the action of the Secretary of War 
in that ? The true test is this, may it please the Court. We 
will suppose that that paragraph had been published weeks ago, 
before the American people had had their attention challenged 
to this trial through the press. Would it, upon its face, have 
suggested an impugning and a criticising of the action of the 
Secretary of War ? It says : 

"On the return of the escort ship bringing the relief party to St. John's, 
September 13, there was still time, as known from previous experience and 
shown by subsequent facts, to send effective relief." 

If he had added, '^this should have been known to the 
Secretary of War," etc., there can be no doubt about it, it 
would have borne the construction of a criticising and impugn- 
ing of his action. But it does not point in that direction. The 
specification recites that the Secretary of War decided that it 
was not practicahle. The extract expressed the opinion that 
there was time, that there was still time. 

Both averments may be true, the one made by the Secretary 
of War in the alleged decision that it was not practicable^ and 
the averment of the Chief Signal Officer of the Army that 
there was still time. Those are the two. And it is respectfully 
submitted to the Court that there can be no judgment of guilt 
upon that specification, because to render such judgment the 
Court must hold that the extract from the annual report of the 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 233 

Chief Signal Officer for 1884 standing alone sustains it (for 
each specification, the rule is, must be self-supporting), and, 
standing alone, it does not contain or suggest a criticising or im- 
pugning of the action of the Secretary of War. 

But the specification, alleges a decision — not that it had been 
decided, for that would have clearly been too indefinite ; not 
simply that a decision was made that it was not practicable to 
send a ship of rescue in the fall of 1883. But the specification 
alleges that the Secretary of War " decided." 

From the beginning we have demanded that decision. It 
has not yet come to the knowledge of the Court. I say it has 
not yet come, may it please the Court, because the Court shall 
know nothing unless the knowledge reaches it through the ap- 
pointed judicial channels. It must reach it through the public 
statutes of which the Court takes judicial notice, or it must 
reach the Court through documentary or oral testimony given 
or presented in the presence of the Court or through the ad- 
missions of the accused. Those are the four channels. We 
ask for the decision of the Secretary of War, if in writing, as 
the word "decision" imports, or the word ^^ decided." If in 
writing, produce the writing. If he did decide in fact, pro- 
duce the evidence of the fact through the oral testimony, if 
written proof cannot be submitted. 

And wliat is the answer to that ? The Judge-Advocate puts 
in evidence an appendix to the report of the Secretary of War, 
to an alleged report of the Secretary of War for the year 1883, 
entitled ^' A memorandum." 

May it please the Court, I understood then, and I under- 
stand now, that the object of introducing that memorandum 
was to set it up in argument as the decision of the Secretary of 
War referred to in each of the specifications. Who proves that 
that memorandum embodies the decision of the Secretary of 
War ? Suppose, may it please the Court, it had appeared on 
the face of the memorandum, " This is a memorandum of the 
decision of the Secretary of War made on the 19th of Sep- 
tember, 1883," etc. It could not prove itself. It might prove 
itself as a memorandum, but it could not prove that it em- 
bodied the decision of the Secretary of War. Is the Court to 



234 THE HAZEJS" COUKT-MAETIAL. 

adjudge, in the absence of proof, that the printed paper con- 
tains no error, that it is the same in substance and effect as the 
manuscript from which it was printed ? The Court, it is re- 
spectfully submitted, cannot adjudge that. It professes to be a 
copy of a memorandum. The Honorable Secretary of War, on 
page 20 of his report, says : 

"A copy of the memorandum of the views of the Secretary of the 
Navy and myself, made at the time, is appended." 

He designates it, not as the decision of the Secretary of War, but 
as a copy of a memorandum containing the views of the Secre- 
tary of the Navy and himself. Does that, may it please the 
Court, answer the description of the decision that the accused 
is charged with impugning — the decision of the Secretary of 
War? 

Does it not suggest that this is the memorandum of the de- 
cision of a board, not the decision of the head of the War De- 
partment, the officer charged immediately with the military ad- 
ministration? It is a copy, he says, of a memorandum. Where 
is the original ? 

May it please the Court, it is a rule of construction as ap- 
plied to evidence, in practice in the courts, where a party intro- 
duces secondary evidence and withholds what is primary and 
original, that the presumption attaches that his position would 
not be supported by introducing the original document. Where 
is it ? It has not been exhibited to the Court. Is it in the 
War Department ? The Secretary's decisions must be filed 
there. We challenge the proof of any such record in the War 
Department. We would have had it here had it existed there. 
We are forced to the conclusion that no such record exists 
there. 

This states the Secretaries of War and of the ISTavy have 
decided. It imports a decision preceding this. Where is it ? 
This is alleged by the Secretary of War to be a copy in his an- 
nual report of what appears there, unsigned. If it is set up as 
the decision itself, it must be proved by the signature of the 
Secretary of War attaclied, or by oral testimony in Court, or 
the authentication of the proper officer. 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 235 

Was it ever heard before that so grave a charge should be 
made as violating the decision of the Secretary of War, impugn- 
ing it, and making that the basis of the charge, and the de- 
cision itself not be exhibited ? Why is it that it is a require- 
ment of law that the proof shall be responsive to the allega- 
tion ? And what is the law upon that subject ? I read from 
Starkie on Evidence, third volume, page 1529 : 

''It is a most general rule that no allegation which is depcriptii^e of the 
identity of that which is legally essential to the claim or charge can ever be 
rejected." 

You cannot reject the demand for the proof as to the deci- 
sion. Again : 

"Were it otherwise, if proof could be admitted which varied from the 
record, in consequence of the omission to prove any allegation descriptive 
of an essential particular, it is plain that the proof would no longer agree 
with the cause of action, or charge alleged, to any extent ; they would differ 
throughout in respect of that descriptive allegation ; and, as the proof 
would be more general than the allegations, it would no longer be partial 
proof of the same charge or claim, but of a different or more general one. 
As an absolute and natural identity of the claim of the charge alleged with 
that proved consists in the agreement between them in all particulars, so 
their legal identity consists in their agreement in all the particulars legally 
essential to support the charge or claim ; and the identity of those particu- 
lars depends wholly on the proof of the allegations and circumstances by 
which they are ascertained, limited, and described. To reject any allegation 
descriptive of that which is essential to the charge or claim would obvi- 
ously tend to mislead the adversary." 

Now, the descriptive allegation applied to the decision is 
that it is the decision of the Secretary of War, and we are con- 
fronted with a memorandum, an alleged copy of an alleged me- 
morandum, of an alleged decision of the Secretary of the Navy 
and the Secretary of War. 

May it please the Court, this is much more than Darwin's 
solitary missing link. A whole chain is wanting here of legal 
proof and requirement. 

I quote from Starkie on Evidence, volume third, star, page 
1533 : 



236 THE HAZEN" COIIET-MAETIAL. 

" It seems to be a universal rule that a plaintiff or prosecutor shall in 
no case be allowed to transgress those limits which, independent of descrip- 
tion, limitation, and extent, he has prescribed for himself. He selects his 
own terms in order to express the nature and extent of the charge or claim ; 
he cannot, therefore, justly complain that he is limited by them. To allow 
him to exceed them would, for the reasons adverted to, be productive of the 
greatest inconvenience." 

And the learned author, who is constantly cited in works upon 
the law of courts-martial, Mr. Starkie, applying the principles 
referred to, says on the same page : 

"If a man were charged with stealing the horse of John Doe, and it 
turned out that the horse was the property of John Doe and James Doe, the 
variance would be fatal, for the interest of James Doe, thus proved and not 
alleged, would show that the ownership was misdescribed altogether." 

We are charged with violating the decision of the Secretary 
of War, with impugning it ; and to prove that, a joint decision 
of the Secretary of AYar and the Secretary of the Navy is ex- 
hibited. Could any method be adopted which would more nat- 
urally tend to effect a surprise upon the accused ? He might 
be ambuscaded and surprised at every stage and throughout 
every specification, if this could be admitted. Is not the prin- 
ciple contended for here in reference to the specification, exactly 
the same, though in its application relating to a different class 
of offences, as that illustrated by the learned author that I 
now cite ? that proof of the decision of the Secretaries of War 
and of the Navy, if it were proved, is not proof of the decision 
made by the Secretary of War as alleged in the specification ? 

But it may be suggested that this is " technical." I submit 
that this is not what is termed a technical objection, if by the 
term '^ technical " it is meant to impress the Court with the 
idea that it does not belong to what is material. 

Suppose a party were charged before this Court with having 
committed an act of violence upon the person or the property 
of another, the location of the property perfectly described, the 
scene known to the members of the Court, but the ownership 
not named, or misnamed. Objection is made ujion that omission 
appearing. It might be termed a technical objection, but the 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAKTIAL. 237 

Court, guided by the long line of precedents in courts-martial, 
would instantly render a finding of not guilty as to that case. 
These requirements of the law, that descriptive words must be 
sustained in proof, belong not to the form, but they concern the 
substance of judicial administration. 

A court-martial cannot disregard them, because the oath of 
the member binds him to apply the rules of the civil courts in 
the construction of pleadings and in the enforcement of the 
rules of evidence. It is vital. For what do the authorities say ? 
Such a variance between the allegation and the proof, where 
words of description are used in the allegation, is a fatal defect. 

With a view to dispose of questions of law at the opening, I 
pass to another question of law. We submit to the Court that 
the specification is not responsive to the charge in this, the -first 
specification : That it does not appear that the alleged decision 
of the Secretary of War (and it is not set out in the specifica- 
tion) related to military administration. The charge is " con- 
duct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline." 
"Good order" in what ? Good order in the execution of the 
laws and authority relating to the Army of the United States — 
maintaining order there in the Army ? 

It is well settled that wherever this charge has been made 
under the sixty-second Article of War, the first requirement has 
been to show by the proof that the officer who is charged to have 
been the subject of the disrespect was acting in relation to a 
military duty, having authority to perform it. 

Can the Court assume that because the Secretary of War is 
alleged to have made the decision in the performance of his offi« 
cial duty, that that is a sufficient allegation that it was a duty 
relating to the military establishment ? We think we can sat- 
isfy the Court that that deduction would not be warranted. 

Let us take the report of the Secretary of War for the year 
1884. In that report the first page (as it appears in every re- 
port, in fact) gives a statement of expenditures and receipts, 
salaries, contingent, military establishment, Army, Military 
Academy, public works, including river and harbor improve- 
ments. The Court may take notice of the statutory powers of 
the Secretary of War in relation to the subjects stated, always, 



238 THE HAZEN COUET-MARTIAL. 

in his official report, duties relating to the military establish- 
ment, consisting of the Army and the Military Academy of the 
United States ; duties relating to public works, to the improve- 
ment of rivers and harbors — a class of duties having no relation 
to military administration. And the Court cannot hold that 
because of the mere allegation that he was in the performance 
of his official duty, that it related to military administration, es- 
pecially when that very specification that recites the alleged 
class of duty takes it far beyond the orbit, the normal sphere, of 
the War Department — takes it into the northern seas in ships 
and into a nautical enterprise. And the proof is silent upon 
that point, that the Secretary of War was acting in the course 
of military administration when he decided, as alleged, not to 
send a ship of rescue to the Arctic. There is no proof upon 
that point. 

Says a learned authority, Mr. Hilliard, in his work on the 
'' Law of Torts," vol. i. p. 281 : 

" Where words derive their actionable quality from extrinsic facts and 
circumstances connected with an oflBce or employment of the plaintiff, these 
must be proved." 

They must be proved. The decisions of the Judge- Advocate- 
General's office are burdened with determinations of that very 
point : that where the charge is an act to the prejudice of mili- 
tary discipline, it must be shown that the officer against whose 
authority the accused acted was engaged in the execution of 
military functions. 

Why, may it please the Court, the Secretary of War is an 
officer of manifold functions. As an adviser of the President, 
;a member of the Cabinet, his function is political. It may 
come to pass that the all- seeing eye of the public press, from 
which nothing seems to be hidden that transpires on the surface 
of the globe — this eye that never slumbers or sleeps may discover 
that the Secretary of War, as an adviser of the President, had 
counselled the execution of a treaty with a foreign power which, 
in the general judgment, would be detrimental to the interests 
of this nation. And an officer of the Army might, in sharp, in- 
.cisive terms, through the public press, criticise the counsel given 



THE HAZEIT COUET-MARTIAL. 239 

by the Secretary of War, impugn its accuracy, deny the fact 
upon which he had advised the President of the United States 
to enter into this treaty. A court could not convict him upon 
the charge of conduct to the prejudice of good order and mili- 
tary discipline ; that would not be contended, because his criti- 
cising and impugning would relate to the political function of 
the Secretary of War, and not to military administration. 

Why is it an offence at all to criticise and impugn in harsh 
and disrespectful terms and assail a superior officer by an offi- 
cer of the Army ? It is this, we submit to the Court: That pub- 
lic attacks upon officers charged with tlie military administra- 
tion tend to weaken the bauds of authority, to promote dis- 
order by inciting disrespect on the part of others, thus bringing 
the military establishment into contempt. That is the reason 
of that provision of the military code. The life of the offence 
consists in that consideration. And in order to establish it, in 
order that the proof of the charge shall follow the reason of the 
charge, or, as a great writer has well said, because ^' the reason 
of the law is the life of the law," it is for that reason that the 
proof must follow the reason of the law^, to show that the officer 
was impugned or assailed in the course of military administra- 
tion. 

What was the question, may it please the Court ? What 
does the alleged decision relate to ? It related solely to a nau- 
tical question— namely, whether Melville Bay, in the Arctic belt, 
twenty-nine hundred and eighty miles, I am informed, from the 
War Department, was navigable in the month of September, the 
latter part of September, and in the month of October, 1883 ; 
whether the icebergs had barricaded Davis Straits ; whether 
the midnight sun of the Arctic had sunk behind its everlasting 
walls of ice ? That is it. We have heard, may it please the 
Court, of things that differ as widely as the poles. Surely this 
suggests the expression. The alleged decision related to the 
polar zone, to the regions of thick-ribbed ice, springing from 
no military function, suggesting no military authority. 

And yet no proof is offered, no law is exhibited, to show that, 
as matter of law and matter of fact, this was made part of the 
military administration of the Secretary of War. 



240 Ti::: iiaziox couilt-maiitial. 

Did the War Department send a relief expedition finally to 
the Arctic ? The Secretary of War in his report says not. The 
Secretary of the Navy sent it. Charged by law with that duty, 
under the direction of the President he sends it. There never 
was a decision, we submit, made at any time pursuant to law 
by the Secretary of War, that a relief expedition should go to the 
Arctic seas. Not at all. 

A member of the Court — Mr. President, I would like the 
Court at this time to take a short recess. 

The President — Does the counsel object to a recess at this 
time ? 

Mr. Mackey — No, sir. I |)refer a recess. 

The President — Then, the usual time for a recess having 
arrived, the Court will take a recess until half -past one. 

A recess was then taken. 

The recess having expired, all being present as before, the 
Court resumed its session. 

Mr. Mackey — Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, 
at the recess of the Court the counsel for the accused was ad- 
dressing some considerations to the Court touching the func- 
tions of the Secretary of War as they related to the North Pole 
and explorations in northern seas by ship, v/ith a view to main- 
taining the position that a charge of conduct to the prejudice 
of good order and military discipline can only be supported by 
proving that the conduct obnoxious to the Secretary of War 
related to the exercise of his military functions, to his functions 
as Secretary of War proper. 

I beg leave to call the attention of the Court to Section 216 
of the Eevised Statutes of the United States, under the title 
'' The Department of War," in which the powers and duties of 
the Secretary of War are defined : 

' ' The Secretary of War shall perform such duties as shall from time to 
time be enjoined or entrusted to him by the President relative to military 
commissions, the military forces, the warlike stores of the United States, or 
to other matters respecting military affairs ; and he shall conduct the busi- 
ness of the Department in such manner as the President shall direct." 

May it please the Court, the charge and the specifications 



THE HAZEIS^ COURT-MAETIAL. 241 

relate to the office of the Secretary of War as the immediate 
head of the War Department. That is emphasized by the fact 
that the accused is not even informed in the specifications as to 
what Secretary of War he impugned, or is alleged to have criti- 
cised. The specification is the most novel ever submitted to 
a court-martial, in that the office is named, and the officer, eo 
nomine, is not ascertained in the specifications. It was in- 
tended to confine tlie specifications severely to the office of 
Secretary of War. Tliat office, the statute recites, relates only 
to military administration. Congress, in the exercise of its 
jurisdiction, has supplemented the ordinary and normal func- 
tions of the Secretary of War by charging him with the duty of 
disbursing funds for the imjorovement of rivers and harbors. 
He is made a disbursing officer in regard to that class of inter- 
nal improvements. But these do not relate to the function of 
the War Secretary, nor do nautical expeditions relate to that 
function. 

We submit to the Court that the failure to exhibit proof con- 
necting the language alleged to have been used by tlie Chief 
Signal Officer, with the military administrative functions of the 
Secretary of War, is fatal to the charge. 

As to the second specification : We submit to the Court 
that now is the proper time, or rather the opening argument 
would have been the proper time, for the Judge- Advocate to 
have disclosed to the accused the law upon which the second 
specification rests. That is to be determined solely by matter 
of law. It is admitted that the citation from the letter of the 
Chief Signal Officer of February 17, 1885, to the Secretary of 
War, is correctly given. That specification alleges that the let- 
ter was addressed to the Secretary of War by the Chief Signal 
Officer without liis being requested or authorized to address him 
such a letter. It is a matter of law. Where is the law which 
contains that requirement ? We aree-ntitled to know it, accord- 
ing to the rules that govern in the civil courts; and the authori- 
ties say that they must govern here. Where is the law ? Is it 
to bo kept undisclosed ? 

If there is a law, then its existence is fatal to this specifi- 
cation. If there is a law requiring that the Chief Signal Officer 



243 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

should first obtain leave, then it was necessary to allege that, 
contrary to law, he addressed the Secretary of War a letter with- 
out obtaining leave. It is not done. We are unable to dis- 
coyer such a law. 

Is it a custom ? You cannot render judgment upon a cus- 
tom, unless you prove the custom. We have disproved it as it 
relates to communications heretofore between the Chief Signal 
Officer of the Army and the Secretary of War. It was testified, 
and it is uncontradicted, that upon a vital question relating to 
Arctic expeditions and the disbursement of funds or some minor 
detail, not with reference to dispatching expeditions or fitting 
them out, the Secretary of War promulgated his decision as 
to the true construction of an Act of Congress, in which he 
thought (that is the testimony) that the law did not contem- 
plate an annual relief expedition, and that the Chief Signal 
Officer protested against that decision by a communication ad- 
dressed to the Secretary of War, the accuser in this case^ and 
protesting against it, as the witness testifies, on the ground that 
the Secretary of War had erred in expressing his judgment to 
the President to the effect that such annual expeditions were not 
authorized by law. 

The President, whose hand was to be potential upon the 
question of dispatching Arctic expeditions, enters the arena 
at that stage. The Chief Signal Officer protested that the 
Secretary of War had not correctly advised the President, and 
the decision of the Secretary of War was reversed by the Presi- 
dent. 

There was a communication toucliing a vital question, after 
a decision rendered, after advice given by the Secretary of War 
to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, to tlie 
statutory head of Arctic explorations, the President, and sent 
without question by the Secretary of War, as to the right of the 
Chief Signal Officer, charged immediately with administrative 
and executive duties connected with those expeditions, without 
questioning the right of the Chief Signal Officer to give his view 
without being requested or authorized. 

We instanced tlie further case of the Secretary of War having 
decided that the Signal Corps was not a part of the Army of 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 243 

the United States, and the proof that the Chief Signal Officer 
protested against that view ; that it was reviewed by the head 
of the Department of Justice of the United States, and that the 
Secretary of War was reversed again on the issue made by the 
Chief Signal Officer with him, the communication being ad- 
dressed to him without leave first obtained. 

Men are not apt to invite communications to review their 
errors. We instanced the case, in proof, of Captain Olmsted, 
a cashiered officer of the Army of the United States — cashiered 
for embezzling public funds — restored by Act of Congress in- 
some mysterious dispensation of Congressional providence, re- 
stored, assigned to the Signal Corps, smirched and stained, the 
Chief Signal Officer protesting against the assignment, and in 
that the Secretary of War was exercising a function of military 
administration. The Chief Signal Officer, the proof is, ad- 
dressed the protest to the Secretary of War without leave, with- 
out rebuke. The officer was assigned, and, as the Chief Signal 
Officer predicted, he embezzled the moneys of the Signal Office. 
And we were proceeding to give other instances when the Presi- 
dent of the Court, uttering its view, informed us that the in- 
stances were sufficiently multiplied. 

So that the accused must hold that in the judgment of the 
Court as expressed at that stage, resting the proof upon that 
point, that our proof was already fatal to the second specifi- 
cation. We could draw no other inference, or we could have 
stretched out the line to the crack of doom on that point. 

Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, there is no such 
requirement of law or custom touching communications be- 
tween the chief of a military bureau and the head of the War 
Department. It would be obstructive of public business, it 
would be a false method of administration, if upon every exi- 
gency the Chief Signal Officer of the Army were obliged first to 
require leave before addressing the Secretary of War. Our ad- 
ministrative systems, from the highest officer to the lowest, pro- 
ceed, it is true, upon the basis of a graduated surbordination 
to authority; that there shall be in the administration of the 
government respect without obsequiousness, that there shall 
be subordination without servility. And in the discharge of 



244 THE HAZEN" COURT-MARTIAL. 

what he deems his duty, of which the Chief Signal Officer him- 
self must be the judge in the first instance, he may address a 
respectful communication to the Secretary of War touching his 
administrative duties, either before or after decision promul- 
gated. That is a rational construction of the system; that is 
the established practice under the system. 

If there were a law requiring leave, the Secretary of War, in 
the exercise of his administrative powers in reference to the 
Chief Signal Officer of the Army, has, in practice, dispensed 
with its requirements. He has dispensed with that, and he is 
estopped, to use a technical term ; he cannot speak against it 
now. It is a settled prhiciple of law that he who is silent when 
in conscience he ought to have spoken shall not be permitted 
to speak when in conscience he ought to be silent. It is against 
public policy. Courts have rebuked it, and so have courts- 
martial, for a superior officer to witness acts of a subordinate, 
time after time, and not rebuke them, not preferring charges 
upon them, and finally, for the same class of acts, moving uj^on 
him. 

Says De Hart in his work on Military Law, page 99 : 

** The general regulations for the Army [may it please the Court, he 
refers, I believe, to paragraph 214 of the regulations as they existed at the 
date of the publication of this work in 1846] — the general regulations for 
the Army stigmatize, as being highly improper, to hold charges against an 
officer or soldier, in order that they may accumulate, so as to form collec- 
tively a crime of sufficient magnitude to justify a prosecution ; and declares 
the principle, that if the facts, as they arise, are not of a kind to be made 
matter of charge at the time, they should not at a future period be brought 
up or revived. . . . There have been cases of this description which have 
broken the harmony which ought to subsist between the members of the 
military community, and called forth the severest animadversions of the 
Court and the commanding general. It is, however, of rare occurrence, 
and in every instance, it is believed, where satisfactory evidence of its exis- 
tence has been shown, the result has been painful and humiliating to the 
accuser." 

He is estopped, it is said; his lips are sealed. We proved the 
custom of communicating with the Secretary of War without 
leave or special authority. 

But what does the Chief Signal Office of the Army address 



TnE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 245 

to tlie Secretary of Wtir without leave ? What does the Secre- 
tary of War, the accuser in the case, exhibit in the specification 
as a part of the letter addressed to him without leave — and it 
is that part which, he held, rendered the Cliief Signal Officer 
obnoxious to the charge wliicli lias been preferred against him ? 
This is the part : 

" I respectfully submit that I am justified in the conclusion that the 
tragic termination of the International Polar Expedition was finally due to 
the decision not to dispatch a steam-sealer to effect its rescue on the 15th 
of September, 1883, which I did all in my power to have done; such sealer 
starting from St. John's, N". F., only thirteen days' steaming from Cape 
Sabine, in all human probability could have reached and rescued the party 
before there was any interruption to navigation by ice." 

That ends tlie specification. Does that say, does that intimate, 
that the Secretary of War had rendered a decision ? What 
decision has been traced, or attempted to be traced, to the 
Chief Signal Officer as affecting his knowledge of a decision by 
the Secretary of War ? Why, the only one that the prosecu- 
tion pretends that he had knowledge of was the decision of the 
Secretary of War and of the JSTavy — a board. He says, *^ Was 
finally due to the decision.^' Does that impugn the Secretary 
of War ? Does that criticise his decision ? Does it intimate 
one word of disrespect to the author or authors of any decision ? 
Is it not simply an affirmation in a hypothetical case, that if a 
steamer liad left on September 15, 1883, in all human probabil- 
ity the Arctic tragedy would have been averted? Only this, and 
nothing more. 

And we may search the obnoxious letter in vain for any im- 
pugning of the Secretary of War in terms or by reasonable im- 
plication. It does not ajipear, according to the recital of the 
letter in question, that the Secretary of War had ever rendered 
a decision, or that he was ever called upon to render a decision, 
in the sense in which the language of the specification imports a 
decision. He may have been a member of a board composed 
of the Secretary of the ^N'avy and the Secretary of War, or any 
number of officers. But that does not fulfil the specification. 

I therefore submit to the Court that the proof does not sup- 
port the second specification, and the second specification itself 



246 THE IIAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 

does not move in support of the charge to recite acts that 
prima facie constitute an offence. And the limitation as de- 
cided, the test, is, as decided by the Judge-Advocate- General of 
the Army and supported by authorities cited, that the specifica- 
tion must on its face support the charge. 
The third specification is as follows : 

"In that Brigadier-General William B. Hazen, Chief Signal Officer 
United States Army, knowing that the Secretary of War had, in the per- 
formance of his official duty, ~ decided, in the month of September, a.d. 
1883, that it was not practicable to send in the year 1883 an expedition to 
the Arctic region, etc., . . . and having written and sent to the Secretary 
of War an official communication, bearing date the 17th day of February, 
A.D. 1885, containing, among other things, the following language : 

'' 'The Secretary of War, in his annual report for the year 1884, was 
pleased to make me the subject of severe strictures because, in ray official 
report of the final disaster to the International Polar Expedition, I ex- 
pressed the conviction that such disaster would have been averted had a 
ship of rescue been dispatched from St. John's, N. F., after the return of 
Lieutenant Garlington to that port, or as late as September 15, 1883, as 
urged by me, but not adopted by the Secretary of War. 

"'As my silence, in view of those strictures, might be construed as 
implying my assent to their justice, I beg leave to place on record the 
evidence that supports the correctness of my judgment in the pre- 
mises. . . .' " 

So far I have read. I will continue hereafter. 

Now, is it not clear, may it please the Court, from that cita- 
tion, that the purpose of the letter was not to impugn a recog- 
nized decision of the Secretary of War, but to question the jus- 
tice of his strictures ? K"ot to question the justice of any ad- 
mitted decision on his part, but to question the justice of his 
strictures as they applied to the Chief Signal Officer of the 
Army. That purpose appears on the face of the citation, which 
is as follows : 

" I respectfully submit that I am justified in the conclusion that the 
tragic termination of the International Polar Expedition was finally due to 
the decision not to dispatch a steam- sealer to effect its rescue on the 15th 
of September, 1883, which I did all in my power to have done ; such sealer 
starting from St. John's, N. P., only thirteen days' steaming from Cape 
Sabine, in all human probability could have reached and rescued the party 
before there was any interruption to navigation by ice." 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 247 

He imputes it to the decision not to dispatch a steam-sealer. 
What decision ? The prosecution exhibits it. The decision of 
the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of War. Does he 
impugn ? The term ^Mmpugn," I submit to the Court, used in 
the connection in which it is used in tlie first specifications, 
means a disrespectful arraigning or assailing. Does lie impugn 
the Secretary of War ? Does the conclusion follow by irresisti- 
ble deduction from that citation that the Secretary of War was 
responsible ? No. We have to import into it facts that lie be- 
yond the circle of the evidence to give it that construction. The 
Court will have to adopt the construction placed upon the letter 
by the Secretary of War himself, which the Court has, I under- 
stand, decided is not evidence in the cause — the endorsement of 
the Secretary of War — except to establish the fact that tlie. en- 
dorsement was upon the letter of the Chief Signal Officer when 
returned to him by the Secretary of War. 

The Court could not receive that endorsement as proof. It 
could not receive any matter of specification as proof. That 
is an argument. That is construction by the accuser. If 
the letter did not render the Chief Signal Officer obnoxious 
to the charge of conduct to the prejudice of good order and 
military discipline, if the letter itself was not obnoxious, the 
endorsement could not make it so. It is upon the letter, upon 
its face, upon a reasonable construction of its language accord- 
ing to the meaning of the terms in common acceptation, that 
the Court is to decide whether it is a criticising of the action of 
the Secretary of War and an impugning of its propriety. 

But the specification proceeds: 

" And said communication having been returned by the Secretary of 
War to said Chief Signal Officer with an endorsement thereon, in words and 
figures as follows : War Department, etc." 

Under the decision of the Court, as I understand it, Mr. 
President, we are not called upon to disprove the allegations of 
that endorsement. They are not evidence, but the endorsement 
is only considered as evidence of the admitted fact that it was 
on the letter when it was returned. 

If the endorsement containing the construction of the Secrc- 



248 THE HAZEl^ COUET-MAETIAL. 

tary of War is to fall into the scales in whicli we lay the evi- 
dence for the defence, or into the scales, rather, in which the 
evidence for the j^rosecution is laid, we must then discuss it. 
But it will be the first time in the history of judicial tribunals 
where the argument of the accuser is permitted to enter into 
the orbit of the case as evidence to be met. 

I should like to be informed on that point — whether we have 
to discuss that. We have been at a disadvantage, if we have, 
for the Court arrested us by its decision when we were mov- 
ing on the endorsement. I submit to the Court that it is a 
mere argument ; that the accuser in this case cannot testify by 
proxy — he must be here. He could say all of these things in 
Court. We are entitled to know that, and we ask the Court 
whether that is the meaning of its decision, that that is evi- 
dence ? whether it is to be considered as evidence m the case or 
merely proof of the fact that the letter bore that endorsement ? 

The Judge-Advocate — Mr. President, before the Court 
takes any action I desire to call attention to the fact that 
the record shows that this endorsement which the otiier side 
calls in argument persistently was introduced by the prosecu- 
tion and admitted by the defence. The record so shows. 

Mr. Mackey — We admitted that it was on the paper. 

The Judge- Advocate — That afterwards the Court made a 
decision in reference to it. That then the accused's counsel 
questioned the decision and desired an opinion of the Court as 
to its import, and that the President of the Court gave him an 
answer, to the effect, I think, that he must judge of the lan- 
guage himself; that he must proceed in oi'der, and whenever he 
transgressed that decision the Court would tell him. 

Mr. Mackey — That related, may it please the Court, to the 
accusatory remarks against the Secretary of War, and the de- 
fence admitted the endorsement, as an endorsement, which ap- 
peared on the letter of the accused. But we are dealing with it 
now as an argument putm the specifications — whether we are to 
answer the accuser, who appears by proxy, in that argument; if 
that IS evidence or argument. 

The Peesident — A member of the Court desires to have 
that portion of the record containing the decision read. 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAHTIAL. 249 

The Judge- Advocate — The first question arose on March 
17 in reference to this endorsement, when the defence made a 
motion to strike out. That motion was not sustained by the 
Court. Then the accused's counsel asked as to the purport of 
the decision, and no answer was given him. Then lie again 
raised the question yesterday, when the Judge-Advocate said 
(page 222): 

"The Judge-Advocate — I am directed by the Court to announce that 
the objection of the Judge- Advocate to the reception of the paper is sus- 
tained. I am further directed by the Court to state the following as its 
opinion : * There is no question before the Court respecting the endorse- 
ment of the Secretary of War, except the fact that the accused received that 
endorsement.' " 

Mr. Mac KEY — That is as I understand it. I understand 
that to mean that the endorsement on the paper is material to 
that extent only; that the accused received the letter with that 
endorsement upon it. That is the way I understand it. 

After consultation among the members of the Court the 
Judge- Advocate said : 

The Judge- Advocate — I am directed to announce as the de- 
cision of the Court the following : " The correctness of the state- 
ment of facts and of the opinions expressed ifi the endorsement 
of the Secretary of War is not a question before this Court." 

Mr. Mackey — Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, 
it appears that the obnoxious letter was returned by the Secre- 
tary of War with this endorsement, which I read in part : 

" The within paper, bearing date of February 17th inst., was received 
at the War Department February 26, and is respectfully returned to the 
Chief Signal Officer." 

We shall beg leave to consider this endorsement, may it 
please the Court, in its bearing upon the temper of the ac- 
cused as affecting his construction of the letter, which construc- 
tion may, by some possibility, influence the judgment of the 
Court insensibly. It will appear from that endorsement, as we 
have endeavored to show, that such was the heat of the Secre- 
tary of War and temper upon matters relating to the Chief 



250 THE HAZEK COURT-MARTIAL. 

Signal Officer of the Army jind liis administration of Arctic 
expeditions that even upon an Arctic question, upon a question 
of ice-navigation, the Honorable Secretary could not keep cool. 
In stating that the correctness of the judgment of the Chief 
Signal Officer in the expression made by him, in his last annual 
report, of his view as to the projoriety of the action of the 
Secretary of War in not sending a ship in September, 1883, to 
the Arctic regions, is not a proper subject of discussion between 
the Chief Signal Officer and the Secretary of War — that is the 
first misinterpretation. The Secretary of War interprets in 
that paragraph the letter of the Chief Signal Officer of the 
Army as one inviting discussion with him. 

The Pkesidej^t (to counsel for defence) — At the appro- 
priate time will the counsel suspend his remarks for a few 
moments ? The Court will be closed and we will retire on an 
application of a member of the Court. 

The members of tlie Court and the Judge- Advocate then 
retired to an adjoining room for consultation with closed doors. 

After some time spent in deliberation the members of the 
Court and the Judge-Advocate returned to the court-room, and 
the session of the Court was resumed, all being j)resent as 
before. 

The Judge- Advocate — I am directed by the Court to state 
that it declines to hear any further argument upon the subject 
of the endorsement of the Secretary of War, for any purpose 
whatever. 

Mr. Mackey — May it please the Court, we respectfully ask 
that, in all respectful forms in which a solemn protest can be 
entered against the decision of the Court, that it may be entered 
upon the record in behalf of the accused. 

The PKE3iDEiq"T — Let it be entered. 



NINTH DAY. 



EooMS OF THE Ge:n'eral Court-Martial, 

Ebbitt House. Washingtoi^, D. C, 

Friday, March 20, 1885, 11 A.M. 

The Court met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. Mackey resumed his argument as follows : 

Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, before proceed- 
ing further in treating of matters of law that arise from the 
third specification, I shall read the law, in part, in support of 
the argument and the construction that I shall submit to the 
Court. 

I cite first from Macomb's '^ Martial Law," page 137, a part 
of the paragraph found on that page : 

"It may sometimes happen that the party accused may find it abso- 
lutely necessary, in defence of himself, to throw blame and even criminality 
on others who are no parties to the trial ; nor can the prisoner be refused 
that liberty which is essential to his own justification." 

I cite also as to the law goyerning courts -martial in con- 
struction, third Greenleaf, Section 469 : 

"It is apparent that while martial law may or does in fact assume cog- 
nizance of matters belonging to civil as well as to criminal Jurisdiction, 
military law has respect only to the latter. The tribunals of both are alike 
bound by the common law of the land in regard to the rules of evidence as 
well as to other rules of law." 

It is alleged in the third specification as follows : 

"He, the said Brigadier-General William B. Hazen, Chief Signal Officer 
United States Army, did, in response to an inquiry made by a newspaper 
reporter as to whether he, the said Hazen, had written a letter to the Secre- 
tary of AVar throwing the blame of the loss of the Greely party upon his 
shoulders, intentionally make a statement in answer to said newspaper 
reporter, with a view to its publication, and did cause the same to be pub- 

251 



252 THE HAZEN COUKT-MAKTIAL. 

lished on the second day of March, 1835, in a newspaper printed and pub- 
lislied in the city of Washington, D. C, called the Evening Star." 

The allegation here is, may it please the Court, that. a state- 
ment was made, that it was made intentionally, that it was 
made with a view to its publication, and that the Chief Signal 
Officer of the Army, having made the statement intentionally 
and with a view to its publication, did cause the same to be 
published. 

This is matter of evidence. Two witnesses may testify to a 
state of facts directly opposite. The Court may believe the one 
and reject the other. The impeaching witness presented by the 
prosecution in this case is the reporter to whom the alleged 
statement was made ; the witness for the defence, who by his 
own election appears, is the accused himself. These are all 
the witnesses ; and they are the best witnesses, in the nature of 
the case. 

The gravamen of the offence is not in making the state- 
ment ; that will not be contended. It is not in making a state- 
ment intentionally — and it would be difficult to conceive of an 
unintentional statement in any case. But the gravamen of the 
offence, if there be an offence, which draws it within the juris- 
diction of military law, is the making it with a view to its pub- 
lication. 

What swears the reporter upon that point ? He swears that 
there was no intimation given by him to the Chief Signal Officer 
of the Army at that chance meeting that his statement was to 
be published ; that there was no suggestion that it was an inter- 
view for publication. 

But it may be suggested, in behalf of the prosecution, that 
General Hazen, knowing that his interrogator was a reporter for 
the press, could and should have presumed that in eliciting a 
statement from him, the Chief Signal Officer of the Army, upon 
a matter of general public interest, he, the Chief Signal Officer 
of the Army, should have known, must be reasonably presumed 
to have known, that the statement responsive to the interroga- 
tion would be published ; that this is the common-sense view. 

But it appears upon the oath of the Chief Signal Officer of 
the Army, uncontradicted and un impeached, no witness being 



THE HAZEN- COURT-MAllTIAL. 25B 

offered in rebuttal against him, that this reporter had had ten 
conversations with him, in rehition to matters of pubhc in^terest, 
Avhich were never published, to one that was published. So the 
presumption that would ordinarily attach is rebutted, and espe- 
cially when no suggestion as to publication, as the reporter 
states, was made ; especially when the accused, who is an un- 
impeached witness, swears before the Court that it did not oc- 
cur to him at the time that he was conversing with a newspaper 
reporter, although he had long known Mr. Kauffmann as a 
newspaper reporter, but had had friendly social relations with 
him beyond his reportorial si:)here. 

That allegation, it is submitted to the Court, is not sus- 
tained ; and the evidence that negatives the allegation is 
greatly reinforced when we examine the testimony which dis- 
closes the cause that operated upon the mind of the reporter and 
upon the mind of the Chief Signal Officer of the Army, leading 
to the interrogation of the reporter and leading to the statement 
of the Chief Signal Officer of the Army. 

A newspaper paragraph had appeared in a journal of wide 
circulation, with great head-lines, declaring that the Chief Sig- 
nal Officer of the Army had thrown the blame of the Greely dis- 
aster on the Secretary of War in a letter addressed by him to 
the Secretary of War. That led to the alleged interview. The 
reporter states in his testimony that he called the attention of 
the Chief Signal Officer of the Army to the paragraph in the 
Chicago Tribune, and asked him if he had written such a letter, 
the paragraph containing the further statement that the Chief 
Signal Officer, after writing the offensive letter, had sought a 
leave, either before or after, that he might evade the conse- 
quences of his act. 

To these linked questions, these blended interrogations, the 
reporter swears here that the Chief Signal Officer of the Army 
responded to him, "It is not true." What did that answer 
mean, may it please the Court — " It is not true *' ? Can it be 
held to have meant only, ''It is not true that I have intended 
to flee from the face of authority after offending it " ? Why 
should it not be applied to all the interrogatories ? Why should 
it not be applied as meaning, '' It is not true that I have written 



354 THE HAZEN" COURT-MAETIAL. 

a letter throwing the blame upon the Secretary of War, and I 
have not endeavored to evade any responsibility in the matter 
by flight " ? 

It must have struck the mind of the Chief Signal Officer of 
the Army, with his long military experience and his knowledge 
of military law, that the question itself was, in part, supremely 
absurd, as the allegation in the paragraph cited from the Chi- 
cago Tribune was also. He knew well that if he had rendered 
himself amenable by any act of his to trial by court-martial, his 
obtaining a special authority or order to permit him to proceed 
South on a tour of inspection for ten days would not have en- 
abled him to evade the responsibility that attached to his act. 
And he responds to these questions, swears the reporter, "It is 
not true," and follows that, according to the same witness, by a 
statement that " I have written a letter ; I have stated that if 
my recommendation had been adopted the disaster would have 
been averted." 

The paragraph, as it appears in the Evening, Star^ reports 
the Chief Signal Officer as responding : "' Had my recommen- 
dation not been entirely ignored the disaster would have been 
averted." If that was so, the Chief Signal Officer would have 
been treading very near the margin of hostile criticism. But 
when the reporter is questioned as to what the Cliief Signal 
Officer of the Army did say, when the reporter is asked, '* Will 
you swear upon your oath that General Hazen used those words, 
* entirely ignored ' ? " he answers, " I will not swear it." When 
he is questioned in chief by the learned Judge- Advocate as to 
whether he gave the tenor of General Hazen's reply, he answers, 
** Yes, I gave the tenor." But, may it please the Court, as the 
term "tenor" has in law a definite and fixed meaning, and 
means that a conversation or paper set out according to its tenor 
is set out word for word — for that is the legal meaning, that it 
is word for word — the reporter was therefore asked by the coun- 
sel for the Chief Signal Officer of the Army, " What do you 
mean by your statement that you gave the reply of General 
Hazen according to its tenor?" And he answered, "I mean 
that I abbreviated it." He first declares that he cannot swear 
that he gave it in the words of the Chief Signal Officer of the 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 255 

Army ; that he intended to give its substance ; and then he 
swears that he abbreviated it. 

Is the Chief Signal Officer of the Army to be held guilty of 
making statements for publication subjecting him rightfully to 
trial by court-martial — to be held guilty upon the inferences of 
a newspaper reporter who aims to give substance and not form ; 
to give an impression of the meaning created in his mind, but 
not the words of the Chief Signal Officer of the Army ? Sup- 
posing that there were not any testimony upon this point, may 
it please the Court, except the testimony of the reporter ? It 
must fall short of establishing the allegation that the language 
publislied was the language of the Chief Signal Officer of the 
Army. 

One novelty thut marks this portion of the specification is 
this : It is the settled practice, when a party is to be held crimi- 
nally liable for the words contained in a printed paper, to set 
out the printed paper in tlie indictment or in the specification. 
Here was a printed paper accessible, produced in court. It is 
not set out. It is not claimed that it was to be set out. It is 
simply alleged that in substance it was as recited in the specifi- 
cation. Why allege substance when the literal words were in 
print and at the hand of the accuser ? Because the accuser well 
knew, must have known, that he could not support the specifi- 
cation if it alleged the precise words ; and hence the object 
was to get in the substance and effect, ignoring the written 
paper to that extent upon which the specification is based. 

The authorities hold tliat in a specification under a charge 
before a military court (which answers to a count in an indict- 
ment), if the government professes to set out the paper accord- 
ing to its tenor, and there is the slightest variation, it will be 
fatal. 

May it please the Court, has it been proved in substance ? 
Has it been proved that the Cliief Signal Officer of the Army 
stated : '* I have written a letter to the Secretary of War throw- 
ing the blame of the Greely disaster upon his shoulders" ? Is 
it reasonable to assume, in the very nature of things, that an 
officer of General Hazen's rank and intelligence would, to use a 
current vulgarism, *^ give himself away " to a newspaper re- 



256 THE HAZEN COURT-MAKTIAL. 

porter ? Is there any evidence that when the newspaper re- 
porter said to him, " There is a paragraph in the Chicago Tri- 
hune stating that you have written a letter throwing the blame 
of the Greely disaster on the shoulders of the Secretary of 
War " — is there any evidence to show that General Hazen 
adopted the head-lines of a hostile paragraph when that was, on 
its face, a publication hostile to the Chief Signal Officer of the 
Army ? Is it probable that he would have adopted it ? Is it 
not reasonable to assume that when General Hazen answered 
back, '' It is not true," that he meant his answer to cover and 
deny the statement that lie had written a letter throwing the 
blame upon the Secretary of War, as also the statement in the 
paragraph that he intended to make his flight from the seat of 
government ? 

The rule in criminal trials is that, where language will bear 
a construction favorable to the accused, it is not only the pre- 
rogative of the court, but its duty, to attach to the language the 
construction that does not involve criminality. And why ? Ifc 
springs from the cardinal principle of the law that one accused 
of crime is deemed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. 
That presumption walks with him into the chamber of the 
court, it stands by his side, its shield is over his head, and it 
does not fall until the judgment of guilty is announced. To 
make all presumptions against the accused is to violate a cardi- 
nal principle of law. 

I have considered the proof upon the question of an inter- 
view — of statements made with a view to publication — and it 
rests upon the testimony of the reporter. But it does not rest 
there alone, may it please the Court. The Chief Signal Officer 
of the Army, testifying before the Court, solemnly swears that 
it is not true that with a view to publication he made the state- 
ment alleged, or any statement, to a reporter on the night of the 
1st of March — that it is not true; that while the reporter does not 
recollect, and will not swear, that General Hazen used the word 
*^ ignored," General Hazen does recollect, and will swear upon 
the point, and swears solemnly that he did not use it. While 
the reporter will not swear that General Hazen adopted the lan- 
guage used by the reporter, throwing the blame upon the Secre- 



THE HAZEN COUllT-MAKTIAL. 257 

tary of War — to that point he will not swear — yet on that point 
Genei'al Hazen swears, and swears solemnly, that he did not in- 
tend to adopt such language. 

So that, upon the question as to the language used and the 
intent in using it, upon the question of language used with 
a view to publication, not only is the allegation not supported 
by the solitary witness adduced to establish it, but it is con- 
tradicted by the two witnesses combined, the witness for the 
prosecution and the accused himself, and it is contradicted by 
all the surrounding circumstances. 

May it please the Court, this is a tribunal sworn to render 
impartial justice according to the law and the evidence. Tlie 
evidence is more than the testimony. The testimony is what 
falls from the lips of the sworn witness. The evidence includes 
within its orbit all of the circumstances surrounding the case as 
they appear in proof. 

What was the length of this alleged interview so fruitful of 
painful consequences? What was the length of this interview 
that attracts from distant stations high officers of the Unit- 
ed States Army, imposing upon them the double burdens of 
duty in court and departmental administration? What was its 
length ? Less than a minute — an interview on the wing in 
the crowded lobby of the hotel. Was it written down at the 
time? No. The accuracy of the report depended upon the 
frail memory reproducing it fifteen hours later. The very inci- 
dents of this trial admonish us how uncertain it is, how uncer- 
tain is our memory, when we are called upon to give the exact 
words of another. Language has been uttered here by a witness 
and by the learned Judge- Advocate and by counsel— language 
heard by the Court with an attentive ear — and yet the members 
of the Court, the counsel for the prisoner, and the learned 
Judge- Advocate have differed as to the language used; and it 
requires that exact system which mirrors the words, as it were, 
upon the page by the hand of a stenographer to correct mis- 
takes as to what language was used. And shall an officer of the 
Army be convicted upon the contradicted recollection, as to ma- 
terial words, of a newspaper reporter? 

It is true, Mr. President, that in this case the reporter is not 



258 THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 

only a worthy gentleman, as nt tested by the Chief Signal Officer 
of the Army, but a miraculous reporter who never magnifies 
items of news; who with mathematical precision gauges every 
word that he pens for the public; who subjects wh^it he is -pen- 
ning or has penned to tests as severe as could be applied 
through integral and differential calculus itself to secure the 
utmost exactness; but he claims that he never magnifies. But 
he does swear that he abridges; that he did abridge; that he 
abbreviated. If that be so, then he has not given the language 
of General Hazen at that interview — if he has abbreviated it, A 
word may' bear one meaning, a sentence may be held to be of 
one import, when cut from its context, when if the entire state- 
ment were given a contrary meaning and intent would appear. 

How do we know but what in the matter cut off by the re- 
porter, as he declares, in the process of abridgment. General 
Hazen should have said: ^'I have written a letter to show that I 
am not responsible for the disaster to Lieutenant Greely and his 
party; to show that, had my recommendation last fall been 
adopted, the disaster would have been averted; but I intend 
no disrespect to the Secretary of War, and do not intend to 
charge him as responsible for the disaster '' ? 

Can the Court hold, when the proof is of an abbreviated pa- 
per, that the utterances as made did not contain these qualify- 
ing statements? It is respectfully submitted to the Court that 
that would be to take a leap in the dark; that that would be to 
cross a chasm that the evidence has not bridged. It must be 
bridged Avith proof only, and there is the fatal chasm and hia- 
tus between the specification and the proof. 

'Now, if a letter had been addressed to the Chief Signal Of- 
ficer of the Army after the paragraph appeared, calling his at- 
tention to that paragraph, with the inquiry whether he was 
there correctly reported, and he had answered in the affirma- 
tive, we could not defend on that point. It would then be sim- 
ply a question of construction for the Court, in the light of the 
law, as to whether that language constituted such a publication 
as to render the Chief Signal Officer of the Army amenable to 
the charge of conduct to the prejudice of good order and mili- 
tary discipline. 



THE IIAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 259 

But there is no proof that he saw that paragraph before the 
charges were preferred. The paragraph in the Star was pub- 
lished on the evening of Marcli 2. The charge and specifica- 
tions were formulated and signed on the following day. There 
is no proof that the Chief Signal Officer of the Army had time 
to contradict it — and it would keep a man exceedingly busy to 
contradict all the false paragraphs relating to him in the news- 
papers of the day. There was no opportunity for denial until 
he denied it here on oath. 

Will the Court believe him? Will the Court hold that an 
American may be a Brigadier-General in the Army of the 
United States, clothed with its honorable uniform, decorated 
for services to his country in war, and yet that such an officer, 
standing before it unimpeached by legal methods, would- sol- 
emnly and deliberately perjure himself upon a charge liJie this? 
That is" the issue presented squarely to the Court. Upon that 
point General Hazen's testimony closed with the question, *' Can 
you say upon your oath as a witness, upon your honor as a sol- 
dier and a gentleman, that you have not intended an act of dis- 
respect to the Secretary of War?" And he answered, *'I do 
say so." 

May it please the Court, there are acts that speak for them- 
selves, about which there is no question of construction. For 
instance, if one should strike another to the earth with a law- 
less hand for some supposed reflection upon him, he certainly 
could not set up as a defence that he did not intend an act of 
violence or disrespect by striking the party to the earth. The 
act needs no explanation; it speaks for itself. The logic of the 
fact is embodied in the very act. 

But we deal here with publication, with written sentences, 
with constructions. We deal with language that does not in- 
evitably force us to the deduction that if uttered it was uttered 
with disrespectful intent to criticise and impugn the action of a 
superior officer. We are dealing with that, and on that line the 
testimony falls to the earth. 

It appears at the alleged interview that the Chief Signal Of- 
ficer did state that had his recommendation been adopted the 
disaster would have been averted, stating it, as he says, without 



260 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

naming the Secretary of War, without using the term " Secre- 
tary of War"; and the reporter swears that he will not say that 
the Chief Signal Officer of the Army used the term "Secretary 
of War." Bat the Chief Signal Officer of the Army does ad- 
mit that he stated in response to the reporter who sought him 
(not the dhief Signal Officer of the Army seeking the reporter — 
that is the testimony of both): "I have written a letter stat- 
ing that if my recommendation had been adopted the disaster 
would have been averted." 

It has been testified that the Chief Signal Officer of the 
Army was greatly concerned upon the question whether in the 
public judgment he should be held responsible for that disaster. 
He was deeply concerned in that question. It was natural that 
lie should be. His hand penned the instructions by which the 
International Polar Expedition was to be governed. Ruled by 
those instructions, it had been posted on duty at a point nearly 
eighty-two degrees north latitude, and three hundred miles be- 
yond the furthest northern limit of human habitations. He 
knew that. He knew the extent of the disaster that had reached 
it. He knew that on the rocks of Cape Sabine there lay nine- 
teen dead of the Army of the United States, among them two 
officers. He knew that the hand of one of those officers — Lieu- 
tenant Lock wood, of the Twenty- third Infantry — had unfurled 
the standard of this nation at a point further north than any en- 
sign had ever waved. He felt the magnitude of that calamity. 
He knew and felt how many virtuous hearth-stones it had draped 
with the symbols of mourning. It was a matter of very deep 
concern to him. He has stated his deep sensibility upon that 
question. It walked with him in the bright light of noonday, 
and the awful spectacle came to him in the deep shadows of the 
night. It concerned him to show that he had done his utmost 
to avert that disaster. It was a disaster that challenged the at- 
tention of the nations. Ten great governments of the Northern 
Hemisphere were concerned with that expedition in interest. A 
disaster on such a scale that the Empress of the Indies, the 
Queen of England, with the majesty of a woman's character 
that dimmed the very lustre of her imperial crown, gave her 
choicest Arctic ship for the rescue. For once in English his- 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 261 

tory England's ship was not moving in England's battle-line, 
not sailing in the track of England's wars or commerce, but in 
the battle-line of humanity, to attest the kindred thoughts that 
bound together the two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon race. 

It concerned the Chief Signal Officer, a member of the Inter- 
national Polar Congress, as he was, whose name was known to 
the great nations in connection with this question, who had taken 
part in it — it concerned him to vindicate himself. He has de- 
clared here upon his oath that' his purpose in writing the letter 
to the Secretary of War was not to inculpate, but to exculpate ; 
not to arraign the Secretary of War, but to vindicate himself. 

Do the words of the letter contradict that declared intent ? 
On the contrary, may it please the Court, they support it. The 
Chief Signal Officer testifies that his purpose was to establish 
that the so-called Arctic authorities upon whose statements it 
was decided not to dispatch a ship of rescue in the fall of 1883 
to the Arctic, were in error. Hence he enclosed the statements 
of known Arctic navigators, men Avho had achieved renown in 
the ice-fields of the north, and men who, though not renowned 
in history, are renowned in their tasks ; men the business of 
whose lives it is to know when the waters north of St. John's, 
Newfoundland, begin to be navigable and when they cease to 
be navigable. It is their trade, their profession, to know. He 
encloses those also. He encloses them certainly not to impeach 
the Secretary of War, nor to question his motive, nor to impute 
to him a neglect of duty, because he avowedly only concurred 
with the Secretary of the Navy in the views, presented in the 
memorandum, not to send a ship of rescue upon the statements 
made to him. 

The Secretary of War was not an authority upon the ques- 
tion. He did not pretend to be an authority. To arraign him 
for an error in decision, if he made due effort to inform him- 
self, would, outside of the requirements of military law, have 
been an act of the grossest injustice. He who does the best 
under the circumstances as he sees them, intending to do his 
duty, stands absolved whatever may be the consequences. There 
was no such intent. But he does name some of the authorities, 
and he impeaches them — impeaches them by the proof. 



262 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

Let me see what authorities he names. Here is his letter. 
I^ot the Secretary of War ! The Secretary had alleged tliat the 
decision not to send a ship of rescue was based in part npun 
the statements of Commander Wildes and Lieutenant Garliug- 
ton. To that the Chief Signal Officer of the Army addresses 
himself. He says : 

" In view of the conduct of Commander Wildes and Lieutenant Gar- 
lington, I would not consider their opijiions upon the subject of service in 
the Arctic of any possible value, but, on the contrary, to be misleading ; 
while Captain Tyson's long experience on an ice-floe in winter in the Arctic 
regions, under the most distressing circumstances, invalidated his opinion 
upon the subject also." 

Meaning, as to Captaiin Tyson, that he had been demoralized 
by his experience ; that he had become, like Commander Wildes, 
afflicted with glaciphobia, or ice-horror, and could not look 
calmly upon ice. Another authority that he arraigns — but not 
the Secretary of War — is : 

" The Secretary of War, it appears, reached his conclusion after having 
personally consulted Captain Greer, U. S. N., who went to Littleton Island 
in the summer of 1873 in command of the Tigress, in search of the wrecked 
Polaris party, and Dr. Emil Bessels, the scientist of the Polaris expedition, 
and some others.'^ 

These are some of the authorities. He names some and he 
leaves others unnamed. Little could he have thought that this 
letter should have borne the construction that it was intended 
to impute to the Secretary of War a neglect of duty. It was in- 
tended to impute to the authorities upon which the Honorable 
Secretary of War acted a want of knowledge, not to impute, to 
them even, a neglect of duty. It was intended, above all things, 
to place on the files of the War Department a solemn statement 
of the Chief Signal Officer of the Army to show that he had 
made the utmost effort to effect that rescue, and that it was not 
effected was due to the misleading counsel given to the Secre- 
tary of War by pretended Arctic authorities. 

And it is respectfully submitted to the Court that in no 
sense, by no intendment, can the question enter into the decision 
of this honorable Court as to whether the Secretary of War was 



THE HAZEN COUPwTMAllTIAL. 263 

right in that matter or the Chief Signal Officer of the Army was 
right. No such issue is challenged here by the Chief Signal 
Officer of the Army in this case. 

I submit to the Court that the fact that the letter was re- 
turned to the Cliief Signal Officer of the Army (I only refer to 
that fact alone — the mere fact that it was returned) appears in 
the testimony of the Chief Signal Officer of the Army in reply 
to a question by the Judge- Advocate. 

The Judge-Advocate has argued before the Court, in dis- 
cussing an interlocutory motion, that the fact of the return 
of the letter by the Secretary of War aggravated the act of publi- 
cation, aggravated the fact that the Chief Signal Officer of the 
Army made a statement at all impugning the Secretary of War. 

We concede the correctness of that deduction if the preniises 
upon which it rests are true. To be sure, the return by the Sec- 
retary of War of a letter addressed to him by an officer of the 
Army, which, in the Judgment of the Secretary of AVar, rendered 
the officer obnoxious to trial by court-martial, and the return- 
ing of it with the statement that the Secretary commits the 
letter to your own hands (for if it were filed in t^ie War Depart- 
ment I should be obliged to take official action upon it), was, 
gentlemen of the Court, a most gracious act — an act that should 
have awakened only ,a sense of gratitude in the breast of the 
Chief Signal Officer of the Army. It was a benign exercise of 
power, and it was so felt. 

But the sense of gratitude which it awakened was marred by 
the fact that a copy of the letter appears to have been retained 
for the purpose of a prosecution. It "' kept tlie word of promise 
to the ear and broke it to the hope." It was seemingly an act 
of oblivion, committing to the supposed offender the proof of 
his guilt, and yet preserving the proof. Either the copy that 
appears in the specifications was a copy retained when the letter 
was returned or a copy obtained surreptitiously before the letter 
was sent. The deduction is irresistible. This is not the open 
blow of the Saxon, but the stiletto-stroke of the Italian. 

But I pass from that subject, may it please the Court, and I 
beg your attention to this point in the few brief remarks that I 
shall make. 



264 THE HAZEN COUBT-MAETIAL. 

The matter of the charge of the first specification consists 
entirely in extracts from the report of the Chief Signal Officer 
of the Army for the year 1884, which report was published on 
the 15th of October, 1884. The charge to which the specifica- 
tion relates is preferred on the 3d of March, 1885, five months 
later. Tlie authorities upon military law already cited hold 
that where an accuser reserves his knowledge of an act violative 
of military law, and, when some other like act is in his judg- 
ment committed, recurs to the former act and presents an an- 
cient and stale matter to a court, that courts -martial view the 
practice with disfavor, with condemnation. Says De Hart on 
Military Law, as stated on yesterday at page 244, such practice 
has always resulted in consequeuces most painful and humiliat- 
ing to the accuser. And in the opinions of the Judge-Advocate 
Oeneral of the Army, in the Digest of Opinions here, numerous 
cases are cited where courts-martial have held that under those 
circumstances they would not sanction that cumulative system 
of hoarding up in memory all that has passed and renewing it 
after a long interval. 

The matter of the first specification was in the report of 
the 15th of October, 1884, the report published by order of the 
Secretary of War and disseminated from the War Department. 
That is the proof. What would be thought, may it please the 
Court, of one who, in an action against another for publishing 
matter defamatory in its nature, should have it proved that he 
himself had by his order knowingly disseminated the publica- 
tion, the paper ; that he had performed the act of publication ? 
It is not the act of writing charged ; it is the publishing in the 
annual report, and it is published by the War Department, and 
it is answered by the War Department. According to the con- 
struction put upon it by the Honorable Secretary of War, so far 
as he is regarded, the report required no answer ; but, so far as 
his official action is regarded, he answers it. He discusses it at 
length in his own report weeks later. He enters the field of 
controversy, he presents the array of his authorities, he selects 
a public forum for a discussion. The letter comes. It is the 
reply to strictures uttered' as admitted by the Secretary of War, 
penned by him, admitted to have been penned by him in the re- 



THE HAZEI^ COURT-MARTIAL. 265 

cital of the first specification. And the Oliief Signal Officer of 
the Army, in response to the authorities cited by the Secretary 
of War, presents a long array of Arctic authorities, overwhelming 
with this proof the authorities referred to by the Secretary of 
War, bringing confusion to them ; and then the case is trans- 
ferred by that specification, so far as the controversy is con- 
cerned relating to the annual report of the Chief Signal Officer 
for 1884. It is exhausted by the joint discussions through an- 
nual reports in the public forum, and it is then referred, by 
the specification, to a judicial tribunal. 

May it please the Court, it suggests to the mind of the his- 
toric student the case of, the philosopher who, standing in the 
presence of the great King Pyrrhus, allowed certain proposi- 
tions of the king relating to matters of philosophy to go uncon- 
tradicted. Said one of the disciples of this philosopher: " Why, 
you could have proved the king in error ; why did you not do 
it ? " "Ah ! " said the philosopher, wiser in his day and gene- 
ration than the most of us, "I never argue a question with a 
man who commands forty legions." 

It only remains for me to glance, in a few words, at what I 
will assume will be the line of attack on these positions made by 
the learned Judge- Advocate. I must assume that ; and as we 
have not the reply, it is the duty of counsel to meet the possible 
deductions from what maybe deemed weak points in the position 
taken by the defence. 

I assume, first, that the learned Judge-Advocate will insist 
that here is a subordinate officer, subordinate to the Secretary of 
War, and the chief of a military bureau in the War Department. 
The Secretary of War decided as to a matter which, in his 
judgment, it was his duty to decide — that it was not practicable 
for an expedition to sail into the Arctic seas in the month of 
September, 1883 ; that the Chief Signal Officer of the Army 
had no responsibility for that decision, and yet he makes an ex- 
cursion into a field beyond the sphere of his duties, and pub- 
lishes in his annual report strictures upon the decision of the 
Secretary of War. That, I assume, will be his first position. 

May it please the Court, much of what Avould be stated on 
that point, if I am correct, would be such a case as the great 



266 THE IIAZEIS' COUET-MAETIAL. 

O'Connell declared it was when, in answer to Sir Robert Pee], he 
said : '^ The honorable gentleman is indebted to his fancy for 
his facts, and to his memory for his jests." 

That position on the part of the prosecution assumes the 
very question at issue : that the purpose of tiie paragraph cited 
from the annual report of the Chief Signal Officer of the Army 
was to impugn the Secretary of War. That is a question of 
proof, and it does not spring as a natural deduction from the 
paragraph itself. 

As to the second paragraph it may be argued that the Chief 
Signal Officer of the Army knew that tlie Secretary of War, if he 
had not decided himself that it was not practicable to send an 
expedition into the Arctic in the fall of 1883, was a party to the 
decision jointly with the Secretary of the Navy. The Chief Sig- 
nal Officer of the Army acknowledged receiving a dispatch from 
Captain Mills sent on the 15th of September, 1883, informing 
him of the decision of the Secretary of AYar and of the Navy. 
Assume that tliat is the position taken. 

I have endeavored to satisfy the Court, if that is the position, 
it is a surrender of the case on each specification, for the speci- 
fication alleges a decision of the Secretary of War, and not the 
decision of a board composed of the Secretaries of War and of 
the Navy. How did they get together ? How were they con- 
joined ? Whom the law has put asunder, let no man join to- 
gether, may be stated as true here. How did they combine, 
and when did they separate ? By what official or legal conjunc- 
tion did they unite, and where comes in the disjunctive ? We 
cannot tell. That is one of the mysteries of the case. 

But the learned Judge-Advocate may insist that as the 
greater embraces the lesser (a proposition in mathematical sci- 
ence that we are not now j)i*epared with evidence to dispute), 
it follows that if the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the 
Navy rendered a joint decision, that the decision is the decision 
of the Secretary of War. You can impute the whole decision to 
the Secretary of War, although he only formed a part of the 
board or commission or tribunal, or the individuals in conjunc- 
tion, who made it. Well, that would make a part equal to the 
whole, may it please the Court. That is not true in mathema- 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL, 267 

tics, and it is not true in law. That would not be tlie decision 
we are called upon to meet. We are dealing with strict law. 

But the specification states that tliis letter was sent without 
the Chief Signal Officer first asking leave. We have appealed 
in vain for that law. May it please the Court, it is the legal 
right of the accused to have the law disclosed before his counsel 
proceeds to argument. The authorities are abundant upon that 
point. It is his right, say the authorities, to go further. De 
Hart on Military Law, at page 194, says : 

*' The parties before the court may claim the benefit of its opinion 
upon any question of la.w or custom arising and disputed in the course of 
the proceedings, and in the decision of which either may be interested." 

We have not received it. If we had, if there be such a law, 
if it has been disentombed, if search has been made among the 
mouldy statutes of the past for it, we will show that it has be- 
come obsolete by time, by custom, by practice ; that it is with- 
out vital force in guiding communications between the chief of 
a bureau in the War Department and the Secretary of War. 
We must assume that there is no such law. 

But the learned Judge- Advocate may say the very courtesy 
that exists and should be maintained between the Chief of the 
Signal Bureau of the Army and the Secretary of War should 
have led him to ask leave. But the proof is that these com- 
munications, that communications requesting the Secretary of 
War to review his decisions as to matters of administration in 
the Signal Bureau, had been passing for four years. 

As to the third specification I cannot imagine what the 
learned Judge- Advocate may say. 

In conclusion, may it please the Court, it is proper to state 
that there are many novelties that attend the case — novelties in 
the mode in which it was initiated. We recognize with con- 
fidence the fact that the Chief Signal Officer of the Army, the 
prisoner at the bar, is on trial before a Court with an unchal- 
lenged membership. No member of this honorable Court sits 
here by virtue of an overruled challenge. And when I state 
that in behalf of the accused, I state in effect that he has paid 
the highest tribute that he could pay to the character of this 



268 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

Court. He has thereby declared, in stating his confidence in 
the justice of this Court, that he in this case thinks the stream 
will rise above the fountain from which it springs. .The ac- 
cused is aware that although the Court is directed to be ap- 
pointed by the President of the United States, the order detail- 
ing it is from the Secretary of War. The accuser selected its 
members. Yet the accused stands here and states with the ut- 
most sincerity and confidence that he stands, in his judgment, 
before an impartial tribuual. 

May it please the Court, this is not the altar of sacrifice. It 
is the altar of justice. It is a judicial tribunal, where the 
spirit of the partisan should be subdued in the breast of the 
judge. If the Court by its judgment pronounces the accused 
guilty, it will be a judgment carrying with it the weight that 
should be attached to the high character of the tribunal that 
pronounces it. But it is respectfully submitted to the Court 
that, under the law, no judgment can be rendered against the 
prisoner unless his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 
This is the proposition laid down by all the law-writers. And 
what, may it please the Court, is *' proof beyond a reasonable 
doubt" ? What does it mean ? I submit to the Court that it 
means that when the trembling balance of the judgment comes 
to rest, when the mind is seeking to make no further inquiry 
for proof of guilt, when it is recumbent in the belief that the 
prisoner is guilty as charged, then, and not until then, has the 
charge been established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

But, Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, we await 
your judgment with confidence. Upon this evidence, with his 
consciousness of his own acts and his own motives, the accused 
in this case feels that he is locked up in an armor of triple steel 
against this assault. He feels that this Parthian shaft will be 
shattered on the bright shield of his soldierly record. But if 
your judgment be against him you may inflict a scar broader 
and deeper than those scars he now wears upon his body to at- 
test his honorable service in his country's wars. 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 269 

ARGUMENT OF THE JUDGE- ADVOCATE FOR THE GOVERN'MENT. 

The Judge- Advocate— Mr. President and gentlemen of 
the Court, at tliis stage of the proceedings it becomes my duty 
to submit for your consideration my reply to the defence in the 
case which has occupied your attention for the past week. 

On account of the simj^licity of the real issues presented in 
this case, I deem it unnecessary and improper to waste your 
time by asking for a delay for the purpose of replying in detail 
to the lengthy argument of the defence. But I beg leave to 
submit verbally a few remarks upon the evidence introduced 
and the general features of the case. 

In doing so I shall not attempt to combat the many peculiar 
theories advanced by counsel for the defence, because many of 
them have no foundation in fact, and I must exclaim with Mr. 
Swift : 

" From premises erroneously brought 
Deduction's naught." 

Being imbued with the principle that the government has 
no interest in the conviction of an innocent man, and being 
conscious that the law makes certain requirements of me not 
only as prosecutor, but also with reference to the interests of 
the accused, I have endeavored in the preparation and conduct 
of this case, as far as consistent with my duty, to give all the 
assistance possible to the accused, to the end that the Court 
might have before it all the facts pertinent to the issue and all 
the truth attainable. Whether or not I have succeeded in this 
honest endeavor it is not for me to say. 

In considering the first specification it seems to me that 
three propositions arise : First, did the accused know of the 
Secretary of War's official decision as recited in the first part of 
the specification ? Second, did the accused use the language in 
his annual report as alleged and quoted in the closing para- 
graph of the specification ? The third proposition is, if he did 
know the decision referred to in the first proposition, and if he 
did utter or write the language spoken of in the second propo- 
sition, then the question arises whether or not the language sus- 
tains the allegation that he did therein criticise the official 



270 THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 

action of the Secretary of War and impugn the propriety 
thereof. 

As to the first proposition, that the accused did know of the 
official action of the Secretary of War in the matter — know not 
only from his own admission of the fact that he received the 
telegram of Captain Mills of September 19, 1883, in which the 
decision in question was recited, but we know that also from 
the testimony of McLoughlin, in which he stated that the an- 
nual report of the Secretary of War for 1883, in which the de- 
cision in question is set out in full, was received at the office of 
the Chief Signal Officer on December 11, 1883, or nearly ten 
months before the date of the alleged criticism. 

But the point is raised by the counsel for the other side 
that the prosecution has failed to establish the averment that 
the decision was made by the Secretary of War in the perform- 
ance of his official duty. 

In order to prove the knowledge of the accused of the de- 
cision in question, the prosecution was obliged to show the ex- 
act means, source, and channels through which the accused ob- 
tained that knowledge. 

This proof carried with it the character of the decision, the 
language of which speaks for itself, and shows upon its face 
that it was a decision made by the Secretary of War in his of- 
ficial capacity and in the performance of his official duty. At 
the time of its production the defence objected to its reception 
as evidence, but the Court did not sustain the objection, thus 
disposing of the subject, so that it cannot now be a matter of 
controversy. 

At a subsequent stage of the proceedings the accused him- 
.self admitted under oath that he never questioned, but always 
acknowledged, the jurisdiction of the Secretary of War in such 
matters. 

It must be borne in mind that the International Polar Ex- 
pedition being almost entirely composed of men belonging to 
the Army and on detail in the Signal Service or in the Signal 
Bureau, the matter of the relief of that expedition became of 
necessity a question for the official action and consideration of 
the Secretary of War. Under the well-known rule that every 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 271 

public officer is presumed to acfc iu obedience to his duty until 
tiie contrary is shown, it would have been proper for tlie de- 
fence to negative by proper evidence this presumption ; but it 
not only failed to do so, but confirmed it by the best of evi- 
dence — the admission of the accused under oath. 

As to the second proposition under this specification, that 
the accused uttered the language set out in the first specifi- 
cation, it is admitted by the accused, so that there cannot be 
any controversy in reference to it. Tiierefore no further com- 
ments are needed. His report for 1884 is in evidence and was 
admitted by him. 

In thus disposing of the first and second propositions under 
the first specification I beg leave to remark that I consider it 
beyond my province, for reasons which I will hereafter state,, to 
enter fully on the third proposition made by me in reference to 
the first specification — that is to say, the question of criticism. 
I wish, however, in connection with the matter, to invite the 
attention of the Court to the time and circumstances when and 
under which the alleged objectionable language was written; for 
these are natural concomitants and important factors in deter- 
mining whether or not the language in question sustains the 
allegation that the accused did criticise and impugn the pro- 
priety of the official action of the Secretary of War. 

The decision of the latter was made on the 19th of Septem- 
ber, 1883, and was not called into question by the accused, as 
far as the record shows, until the rendition of his annual re- 
port to the Secretary of War for the year 1884, dated October 
15, 1884. History, as well as the report just cited, tell you, gen- 
tlemen, of the disaster that befell the Greely party, and of its 
rescue and return to this country in the spring of 1884. It was 
evident that the responsibility for that disaster belonged some- 
where, and the accused tells you public opinion, the press, put 
it upon his shoulders. It is from this motive, and for the pur- 
pose of attributing the responsibility of the disaster to the deci- 
sion of the Secretary of War, that the alleged objectionable lan- 
guage was inserted in the annual report of the Chief Signal 
Officer. It was purely an after-thouglit as a measure of escape 
from whatever blame might have attached to the accused, if an}^ 



272 THE HAZE^ COURT-MARTIAL. 

In view of section 1195 of the Eevised Statntes, there can be 
no doubt that the Secretary of War was the superior of the 
accused. That law places the latter under the direction of the 
former. 'Nor does the accused deny that in matters concerning 
Arctic explorations he always approached the Secretary of War, 
and that there was never any question as to the jurisdiction of 
the latter in such matters. 

Hence it follows that there is no issue as to the right of the 
Secretary of War to decide questions arising in connection with 
that subject, in regard to Arctic expeditions. 

Mr. Macket — I would like to ask the Judge- Advocate — 

The Judge- Advocate — I object to any interruptions by the 
counsel. 

Mr. Mackey — The rule is, may it please the Court, that a 
misstatement of fact can be corrected in the argument. The 
Judge- Advocate states that the accused did not deny the juris- 
diction of the Secretary of War as to all questions connected 
with Arctic expeditions. He stated that the question never 
arose as to that matter practically. 

The Judge- Advocate — The record speaks for itself, and I 
do not care to argue the matter now. 

Having the right to decide, the rule announced by the 
United States Supreme Court in the case of Mott vs. Martin, in 
12th Wheaton, 38, that 

" Every public officer is presumed to act in obedience to his duty until 
the contrary is shown," 

attached to the act of the Secretary of War. Furthermore, it 
has been held by the courts (see 1st Brightley's " Federal Deci- 
sions," page 598) that ^^when a particular authority is confided 
in a public officer, to be exercised in his discretion, upon an 
examination of facts of which he is the appropriate judge, his 
decision thereon, in the absence of any controlling provision, is 
absolutely final." 

This decision and the rule above quoted are respectfully sub- 
mitted to the Court for its consideration when determining the 
subject of the alleged criticism. 

We will now approacli the second specification. This also 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAllTIAL. 273 

involyes, in my opinion, three separate propositions, namely : 
First, Did tlie accused know of the decision of the Secretary of 
War ? Second, Did he, without authority or without liaving 
been requested so to do, address a certain letter to the Secretary 
of War concerning the latter's action ? Third, If he did have 
the knowledge averred, and if he did write the letter in ques- 
tion under tlie circumstances cited, was such addressing and 
writing an impropriety inconsistent with good order and mili- 
tary discipline ? The first proposition has already been dis- 
posed of under the remarks upon the first specification. 

The second proposition is established by the accused's ad- 
missions and by the production of the letter of February 17, 
1885. 

The third proposition, however, is of similar character as 
the one of the same number under the first specification, and, 
as in the case of the former, I consider it beyond my province 
to discuss it, except in so far as to invite the attention of the 
Court to my remarks made in reference to this subject under 
the first specification. 

I must, however, beg leave to add that the usages and prac- 
tice of the Cliief Signal Officer in reference to addressing the 
Secretary of War upon other subjects after they had been acted 
upon by the latter, furnish no safe rule to guide the Court in 
deciding upon the merits of the issue under the second specifi- 
cation. Every act must be judged by itself and its surrounding 
circumstances. The paragraph quoted in the second specifica- 
tion from the accused's letter of Februaiy 17, 1885, does not 
contain any appeal for redress from an action had of the Secre- 
tary of War. Its language treats of the decision made nearly 
eighteen months previously — a decision which, from its very 
nature and the surrounding circumstances, was final beyond 
recall and irrevocable. It implied no censure of the accused. 
It did not invade any of his rights. It did him no injustice, 
and therefore gave him no cause for complaint, and afforded no 
justification for his peculiar action some eighteen months later. 

And if there had been occasion for complaint, why was such 
a long period permitted to pass by before he sought redress ? 
The knowledge of the accused of this character of the decision 



274 THE HAZETT COFRT-MAETIAL. 

supplies the key to his intent and subsequent purpose in ad- 
dressing the language in question to the Secretary of War. 

The accused was permitted to testify as to his intent in writ- 
ing the various instruments before the Court and recited in the 
first, second, and third specifications. He was allowed to give 
his own interpretation of the language used, and to disclaim any 
disrespect to the Secretary of War. His testimony, however, in 
that particular, is of no value in the face of the written evidence 
of his action. The rules of law tell us that it is not competent 
to 'vary that record by parol evidence. The declarations of a 
party are evidence against him. Documentary evidence is con- 
strued by the court, not for tlie court by the witness. The 
court interprets for itself as best it may. A latent ambiguity 
which testimony out of the papers expresses it may explain. 
But in other respects the documents speak for themselves, and 
no witness can testify to the contents of the writing when the 
writing is before the Court. The intention is derived from the 
act. 

It must not be overlooked that while the accused disclaims 
disrespect to the Secretary of War in his testimony, the vials of 
vituperation were emptied upon the Secretary of War by the 
accused through his counsel. If tlie latter represented his 
client, then there is a most remarkable contradiction between 
the testimony of the accused and his declarations through his 
counsel, during the trial, in reference to the Secretary of War and 
his acts at the time of the commission of the offences alleged. 

In analyzing the third specification I find the following pro- 
positions : First, Did the accused know of the decision of the 
Secretary of War ? Second, Did he address the Secretary of 
War in the language quoted in third specification, and did he 
receive the endorsement recited ? Third, If he did so address 
the Secretary of War, and if he did receive the endorsement 
of the Secretary of War, the question arises. Did he, in response 
to an inquiry of a newspaper reporter, intentionally make the 
statements the substance of which is recited in the specification ? 
Fourth, If he did make the statements alleged, did he make 
them with a view to their publication, and did he cause them to 
be published ? 



THE HAZEN COUET-MARTIAL. 275 

The first proposition needs no further remark — tliat is, the 
proposition as to the knowledge of the decision of the Secretary 
of War. The proof bearing upon that has been treated in a 
discussion of the first and second specifications. 

Tlie second joroposition is established by the introduction in 
evidence of the letter of February 17, 1885. 

The tliird proposition depends for proof upon the testimony 
of Mr. Kauffmann, from which it appears that the accused did 
state that he had written and sent to the Secretary of "War such 
a letter as was described in the interrogation of the reporter, 
throwing the blame of the loss of the Greely party upon the 
Secretary of War, and that the accused's recommendations for a 
relief party had been utterly ignored. 

In my opinion, from a careful perusal of the testimony, 
there seems to be no issue as to the correctness and truth of the 
substance and effect of the article published in the Evening 
Star. But as to the point whether or not the accused caused 
this publication, or whether or not he made the statement with 
a vie<7 to its publication, we must look for proof to the circum- 
stances and surroundings connected with the interview between 
the accused and the reporter. 

We know from the testimony of the accused, as well as from 
that of Mr. Kauffmann, that the latter was well known to the 
former as a gatherer of news for the Evening Star ; that the 
accused had frequently and during a long period furnished Mr. 
Kauffmann with items of news which were published from time 
to time in the newspaper just spoken of, and this at no time with 
any positive instructions by General Hazen to Mr. Kauffmann 
either to cause or not to cause such publications. 

Is it not, therefore, reasonable to presume that any man 
with a full knowledge of these circumstances ought to have 
realized the fact that information was sought of him for publi- 
cation, and that if he did give information it would be publish- 
ed ? The very reference by the reporter to a newspaper article 
as a motive for his inquiry would have suggested to a mind 
exercising ordinary prudence that the information sought to be 
obtained was for dissemination among the public. 

This reference to a newspaper report served in a measure as 



276 THE HAZEN" COIJET-MAETIAL. 

a "notice to the accused that his utterances upon the subject 
were of interest to the news-gatherer and would be made pub- 
lic. 

In the light of these circumstances, and with the injunction 
of the Secretary of War still fresh in his mind to keep the con- 
tents of the letter of February 17, 1885, to himself, I ask wheth- 
er or not the accused was justified in making any statement 
at all, in reference to the letter in question, to a newspaper re- 
porter ? 

•And I submit, further, did not the accused, by making the 
statements in question under the circumstances stated, virtually 
and intentionally cause the publication of the article in ques- 
tion ? And in his chapter on libel Mr. Greenleaf says : 

"A publication consists in communicating matter to the mind of an- 
other." 

And it is believed that the word was used in this sense in the 
specification in question. 

Mr. Mackey— What volume do you quote from ? 

The Judge-Advocate — From third Greenleaf, in the chap- 
ter on libel. 

We cannot look into the breast of the accused for his mo- 
tives or for proof of his intent. The books say that absolut-e, 
metaphysical, and mathematical demonstration certainly is not 
essential to proof by circumstances. It is suflBcient if they pro- 
duce moral certainty to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. 

The Court can only come to a conclusion upon the facts 
here in issue by an act of reasoning from other proved facts, 
which I have endeavored in a general way to bring to its atten- 
tion. 

And I may, in concluding this matter, state that there may 
be applied with propriety in this instance the rule of general 
presumption that a person intends whatever is the natural and 
probable consequence of his own actions. If, however, the 
Court, in its wisdom, should decide that the entire specification 
has not been substantiated in any particular, I respectfully sub- 
mit that such exceptions or substitutions may be made as the 
Court may deem proper and warranted by the evidence. 



THE HAZEN COUET-MARTIAL. 277 

I have heretofore stated that I considered it beyond my pro- 
vince to discuss the proposition whether or not the language 
used by the Chief Signal Officer, as quoted from his annual re- 
port of 1884 and his letter of February 17, 1885, sustained the 
allegation that that language contained improper criticisms of 
the official action of the Secretary of War and impugned the 
propriety thereof. 

I refrain from entering upon such a discussion because of the 
profound respect I entertain for tlie mature and diversified ex- 
perience of the distinguished officers who compose this Court. 
I feel that it would be improper for one of my rank and ex- 
perience to attempt to enlighten upon matters of discipline and 
official propriety officers who have grown gray in the service of 
their country, and who have been honored with high commands 
and great official trusts, in war as well as in peace. 

With my thanks for your kind attention, and with an ear- 
nest request for your indulgence for my shortcomings, I respect- 
fully submit the case for your consideration. 

Mr. Mackey — I call the attention of the Court to an in- 
correct statement of the evidence of Mr. Kauifmann by the 
Judge-Advocate. 

The President — State what it is. 

Mr. Mackey — The Judge- Advocate states that Mr. Kauif- 
mann asked the question, '"'Did you write such a letter" after 
the receipt of the Chicago Tribune, and that the accused re- 
])lied that he did. I call attention to the fact that that is not 
supported by the evidence. I sim2:>ly want to direct the atten- 
tion of the Court to that point. 

I also desire to state that the case of Mott vs. Martin, re- 
ferred to by the Judge- Advocate, is also respectfully referred to 
by the defence as an authority. 

The President — Has the Judge-Advocate anything to say 
in reply to the statement of counsel ? 

The Judge -Advocate — I have nothing to say. I deny it. 
The Court has the evidence before it and can judge for itself. 

The President — The Court will now close for the purpose 
of deliberating upon the case as presented, and there will be no 
further public sessions. The Court is closed. 



278 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

Thereupon, at 1.08 p.m., the Court went into closed session, 
no one being present but the members of the Court and the 
Judge-Advocate, for the purpose of considering the case as pre- 
sented. After some time passed in deliberation the Court at 
3 P.M. adjourned to meet again at 11 a.m. to-morrow, the 21st 
instant. 

J. W. Clous, 
Ca'pL Twenty-fourth Infantry, Judge- Advocate. 



TENTH DAY. 



Rooms of the Gen"eral Court-Martial, 

Ebbitt House, Washi:n'gtok, D. C, 

Saturday, March 21, 1885, 11 A.M. 

The Court met pursuant to adjournment, with closed doors. 
Present : 

1. Major-General Wikfield S. Hais'COCK, U. S. A. 

2. Major-General Joh:n" M. Schofield, IT. S. A. 

3. Brigadier-General Oliver 0. Howard, U. S. A. 

4. Brigadier-General Alfred H. Terry, U. S. A. 

5. Brigadier-General Christopher C. Augur, U. S. A. 

6. Brigadier-General William B. Rochester, Paymaster- 
General. 

7. Brigadier-General Samuel B. Holabird, Quartermaster- 
General. 

8. Brigadier-General Robert Murray, Surgeon- General. 

9. Brigadier-General John" Newtoit, Chief of Engineers. 

10. Colonel George L. An'dre\ys, Twenty- fifth Infantry. 

11. Colonel Wesley Merritt, Fifth Cavalry. 

12. Colonel Hen"RY M. Black, Twenty-third Infantry. 
Captain J. W. Clous, Twenty-fourth Infantry, Judge-Ad- 
vocate. 

The proceedings of yesterday, having been read, were then 
approved. 

The Court being cleared and closed for deliberation, and 
having maturely considered the evidence adduced, finds tlie ac- 
cused, Brigadier-General William B. Hazen, Cliief Signal Of- 
ficer of the Army — 

Of the first specification : " Guilty.'' 

Of the second specification : ''The Court finds the facts as 
alleged, but attaches no criminality thereto." 



280 THE HA ZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 

Of the third specification : '^ Guilty/' except the word '^ in- 
tentionally/' and except the words ^' with a view to its publica- 
tion, and did cause the same to be published on the 2d day of 
March, 1885, in a newspaper printed and published in the city 
of Washington, D. 0., called the Evening Star,''' and except the 
word ^^ such," and except tlie words ^^as was described in the 
interrogation of the said reporter," and except the words " en- 
tirely ignored," and of the words thus excepted '^ 'Not guilty'' ; 
substituting, hoAvever, for the words '^'entirely ignored" the 
word ^^negatived," and of the substituted word ^^ Guilty." 

And the Court finds the accused — 

Of the charge : '' Guilty." 

And the Court does therefore sentence him, Brigadier-Gene- 
ral William B. Hazen, Chief Signal Officer, United States Army, 
^'to be censured in orders by the reviewing authority." 

WlITFIELD S. HaKCOCK, 

Major- General U. 8. A., Preside^it. 
J. W. Clous, 
Capt. Tcoenty-fourtli Infantry, Judge- Advocate. 

The proceedings of the tenth day, having been read to the 
Court, with closed doors, were approved. 

There being no furtlier business before it, the Court at 
2.30 P.M. adjourned sine die. 

WiKFiELD S. Hancock, 
Major General U. S. A., President, 
J. W. Clous, 
Gapt. Twenty -fourth Infantry, Judge-Advocate. 

Washi^-gton-, D. C, March 28, 1885. 
Respectfully submitted to the Secretary of War. 

P. H. Sheridan", 

Lieutenant- General. 

Executive Mansion, 
Washington, April 17, 1885. 
The proceedings, findings, and sentence in the foregoing 
case of Brigadier-General William B. Hazen, Chief Signal Offi- 
cer, United States Army, are hereby approved. 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 281 

In giving effect to the sentence of the Court-Martial it is to 
be observed tliat the more exalted the rank held by an officer of 
the Army, the greater is the responsibility resting npon him 
to afford, through his own subordination to his superior officers, 
an example for all others who may be of inferior rank in the 
service. To an officer of fine sensibilities the mere fact of being 
brought to trial before a court-martial must be, in itself, a mor- 
tification and punishment. 

In the foregoing case the accused, whose high rank and long 
experience in the service should have inspired him with a full 
realization of that respect for constituted authority which is 
essential to military discipline, has been adjudged guilty of in- 
dulging in unwarranted and captious criticism of his superior 
officer, the Secretary of War, thereby setting a pernicious, ex- 
ample subversive of discipline and the interests of the service. 
Subordination is necessarily the primal duty of a soldier, what- 
ever his grade may be. In losing sight of this principle the ac- 
cused has brought upon himself the condemnation of his bro- 
ther officers who examined the charges against him, and seri- 
ously impaired his own honorable record of previous conduct. 
It is to be hoped that the lesson will not be forgotten. 

General Hazen will be released from arrest and assume the 
duties of his office. 

Grover Cleveland. 



APPENDIX 



APPENDIX. 



LETTER OF CHIEF-ENGINEER GEORGE W. MEL- 
VILLE, U. S. N. 

Ieving House, Philadelphia, 
December 5, 1884. 

General Wm. B. HAZE]^f, IT. S. A., Washington, D. C: 

Dear Sir : Your letter of the 30th ultimo to hand this A.M., 
and I hasten to reply. 

Your letter comprises three questions : First — My opinion, 
with my present knowledge of affairs, of the chances of being 
able to reach Cape Sabine last autumn, had I been ordered to do 
so. Second — The chances of a good sealer reaching that point, 
if leaving St. John's, N. F., by September 15. Third— What 
would have been the chances of wintering safely at some high 
point, in the event of not reaching Cape Sabine, and of receiv- 
ing relief early this spring. 

Now as to the first query. From facts gathered during the 
summer cruise of the relief fleet of 1884 I am confirmed in the 
opinion which I formed in the autumn of 1883 — viz., that had 
I been landed at any point north of Cape York or Cape Athol in 
Davis Strait, according to the plan that I then proposed, I could 
successfully have communicated with Cape Sabine with entire 
safety to myself and party. Notwithstanding that my proposal 
to the Navy Department was that I should go as far as Littleton 
Island, where I had every reason to believe I would find the 
Greely party — if, indeed, they had been able to reach that point 
— still, if my instructions should have directed or permitted me 
to proceed as far as Cape Sabine, I am confident now that the 
voyage could have been accomplished at that time. 

And, secondly, I am of opinion that a good sealer or steam- 

285 



286 THE HAZEIT COURT-MARTIAL. 

vessel, not too large, of average strength and a speed of seven 
or eight knots an hour, leaving St. John's September 15, could 
have gone, and can go every year, as far north as Cape Sabine 
or Littleton Island, near the mouth of Smith Sound. 

And, thirdly, concerning the chances of wintering with safe- 
ty at some high point and being relieved in early spring, there 
is no reason whatever why any vessel could not winter without 
danger in any of the well-known harbors between Cape York 
and Littleton Island. The only question in this matter would 
arise if the effort to reach Cape Sabine should be continued too 
late in the season, when it would become necessary to winter on 
the southward side of one of the large islands or projecting 
points of land, instead of in an inner harbor. If a good harbor 
were secured anywhere north of Cape York, early spring succor 
could reach Cape Sabine without a doubt, and at least thirty 
days sooner than did the relief fleet of 1884. It is only proper 
that I give you some of the reasons which lead me to entertain 
the opinions which I have so confidently expressed. 

The facts established during the cruise of Greely Eelief 
Fleet were these : That we found natives at Cape York ; a large 
settlement of natives at Saunders Island, who winter in North 
Star Bay ; we saw sled-tracks of the Eskimos at Cape Parry, 
and still further to the northward, where the natives winter on 
the islands in Whale Sound. And before leaving Littleton 
Island natives had visited the United States steamer Bear who 
had wintered at Life-Boat Cove, to the northward, but in sight 
of Littleton Island. 

To insure the safety of my party it was a part of my plan to 
affiliate with these natives and make use of them as guides, and 
their dogs to assist in transportation ; although I did not then, 
and neither do I now, regard it as essential for the safety of a 
travelling party to depend upon natives, so long as there is an 
abundant supply of provisions, with alcohol for fuel and tents 
for shelter. I can winter anywhere in the Arctic regions with 
safety. 

The months of September and October are those when Baf- 
fin's Bay, Melville Bay, and Davis Strait are freest from ice. 
The drift-current at all times in these waters is to the south- 



THE IIAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 287 

ward^ retarded occasionally by wind and tide, but the current 
is southerly. The ice-gorge which jams the mouth of Smith 
Sound keeps the ice broken and scattered in the large bay-like 
waters of Davis Strait, and all, or nearly all, of the loose ice of 
spring and summer is driven out of Davis Strait before the fall 
ice begins to form. In fact, this strait or sound is compara- 
tively free of ice from July to Octol)er. Young ice starts to 
make in August, but the wind breaks it up and ib is driven 
south until October, when the ice makes across the mouths of 
the bays and the sound gradually closes up. For these reasons 
I am convinced that a point to the northward of Cape Parry 
can be reached as late as October 15, with the possibility of 
reaching Cape Sabine, or Littleton Island, or Port Foulke 
(Foulke Fiord) as late as October 30. 

It is true that northerly gales set in about this season of the 
year, but so much the better for clearing the strait of ice, as the 
gorge jams to the north of Cape Sabine and Littleton Island, 
and that which streams through this narrow strait has the broad 
bay to the southward in which to scatter. 

A ship might steam against these northerly gales, but the 
wind does not blow constantly, and inside of Davis Strait to the 
north of Cape Athol there are plenty of harbors and islands af- 
fording shelter until the gale abates. 

Again, a ship never lies so well as she does in the midst of 
a loose pack where there is absolutely no sea ; this affords an 
excellent harbor until the gale has subsided. Any vessel that 
enters a winter harbor is perfectly safe until the breaking-up of 
the ice in the spring ; and, indeed, if she be laid up in a close 
harbor, she will not only be safe until spring, but may have to be 
sawed out of her bed. Witness the schooner United States, of 
the Hayes expedition, the Advance, of Kane's expedition, and 
the little schooners of one hundred tons that I saw whaling in 
Cumberland Sound at Niautilick Harbor, where many other 
vessels of all classes, large and small, have been wont to winter 
for years. 

If a close harbor cannot be made, a shelter is found under 
the lee of one of the islands — i.e., to the southward of one of the 
islands in Davis Strait — where boats, and sleds, and provisions 



288 THE HAZETT COURT-MAKTIAL. 

should be landed for the safety of tlie party should the vessel 
be carried off to sea ; and if this occurred there is no great 
danger to be feared, as she would drift with the floe southward to 
a warmer climate and to freedom and safety, and if crushed in 
spring- time the surplus boats and provisions kept on board the 
vessel will suffice for all. 

Escape from Smith Sound with boats and sleds is a matter of 
no great labor in spring or summer, if supplied with pro visions — 
vide Kane, Buddington, Garlington, Oolwell, and Captain Pike, 
of the Proteus ; and had Captain George Tyson had a sufficient 
number of boats to carry his party of nineteen people when in 
sight of the coast of Labrador, before the Tigress (Captain 
Bar tie tt) picked him up from the ice-floe, he, too, could have 
completed his journey in the boats. 

If a harbor had been made for a ship, or had supplies been 
placed anywhere north of Cape Athol, succor could have reach- 
ed Cape Sabine thirty days earlier than did the Thetis and Bear. 
Whale-ships have fished in Jones Sound, across the North 
Water, as early as June 3, often as early as June 9. When the 
Thetis and Bear and three of the whalers were off Cape York 
on June 19 the ice had every appearance of having been loose 
and broken and pushed up for more than thirty days, and there 
was an abundance of open water. The Thetis pushed her way 
from Cape York to Littleton Island in less than seventy-two 
hours, including a stay of twelve hours at Conical Eock and 
the visits made to Saunders Island and Cape Parry, and in the 
whole of this distance we had no great amount of ice- work to 
do, and we met with no ice that we did not bore or ram our 
way through ; and from the appearance of the ice in this part 
of Davis Strait I am sure that there had been open water for 
more than thirty days. Floes and rafts of ice may have driven 
hither and thither at times, but from the condition of the ice 
at that time — broken, scattered, rotten, and full of holes — I am 
sure these waters were navigable thirty days before our arrival. 
And had a ship wintered north of Cape Athol, the time occu- 
pied in crossing Melville Bay could have been devoted to mak- 
ing headway towards Cape Sabine by ship, to support sledge 
parties that could have started in March or April at the latest. 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 289 

No orood could accrue from wintering at Upernavik or Tessui- 
sak, as the relief fleet and ten whalers were north of Upernavik 
when the ice still lay solid across Melville Bay ; but there is no 
current pushing the ice out of the comparatively dead bight 
of Melville Bay, such as there is in Davis Strait, which pushes 
out, winter and summer, though of course faster in spring and 
summer than at any other season of the year. Melville Bay is 
choked with ice thirty days after Davis Strait is open. The 
bugbear of spring ice navigation is Melville Bay, for once the 
North Water is reached navigation becomes comparatively easy. 
In regard to my ability to have made the transit of the 
strait between Littleton Island and Cape Sabine, not having 
been there at the critical time, I, to be sure, cannot tell what 
the result would have been ; but let it suffice for me to say that 
I did conduct the party from the Jeannette and make the land- 
ing on Henrietta Island, a distance estimated at from twenty 
to thirty miles, and return to the ship, when the ice was run- 
ning like a mill-sluice, and no single piece of ice was at any 
moment at rest. Again, I was detailed by Captain De Long 
on the retreat to conduct the entire transportation of boats, 
sleds, and provisions (he laying out the road) a distance of 
nearly three hundred miles, before reaching Bennett Island 
over ice and through water much more chaotic than any I saw 
on either of my two voyages through Baffin's Bay and Davis 
Strait to Littleton Island or Cape Sabine. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, 

Geokge W. Melville, 

Cliief Engineer U, S. N, 



290 THE HAZEIT COURT-MAETIAL. 



LETTER OF LIEUTEl^ANT A. W. GREELY, U. S. A. 

Signal Office, Wak Department, 
Washington City, December 10, 1884. 

Geneeal W. B. Hazen, Chief Signal Officer : 

Sir : Referring to the letter to you from Chief-Engineer 
George W. Melville, U. S. N., under date of December 5, I 
have to say that I have carefully read and considered it. 

I concur fully and entirely in the views and opinions of En- 
gineer Melville, save on certain immaterial points. 

Concerning the crossing from Littleton Island to Cape Sa- 
bine, on which he says he cannot speak authoritatively, I have 
to say that, while young and constantly-forming ice precluded 
crossing during October, 1883, I am confident that any party 
in good physical condition, under proper and efficient leader- 
ship, could have crossed at any time subsequent to the 10th of 
May, 1884. 

Very respectfully yours, 

A. W. Greely, 

First Lieut, Fifth Cav., A, S. 0. and Asst, 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 291 

LETTER OF SERGEANT D. L. BRAINARD. 

Washington^, D. C, December 9, 1884. 

General W. B. Hazen, U. S. A. : 

Sir : Referring to letter written by Chief-Engineer Melville, 
U. S. N., in reply to your inquiries, and of wliicli you request 
my views, I have the honor to reply as follows : 

In my opinion a vessel would have encountered almost insu- 
perable obstacles in endeavoring to attain our isolated position 
at Cape Sabine during the autumn of 1883. The feasibility of 
such an enterprise would have been extremely problematical, 
owing to the prevalent gales, the rapid and eddying currents 
at that point, and the chaotic masses of ice which are drifted 
with great velocity under influence in this the narrowest por- 
tion of Smith Sound. 

The never-ending stream of ice drifting down Kennedy 
Channel often "gorged" between Cape Sabine and Cairn 
Point, and was held m this position on the south by southerly 
winds, and on the north by the great pressure of the ice-fields 
from the Polar Ocean. 

The practicability of a well-equipped steam-sealer reaching 
Cape Isabella, and thus rendering efficient aid to our forlorn 
party, was never for a moment doubted by those most capable 
of judging the dangers and difficulties which attend ice-naviga- 
tion at that season of the year. 

Our opinion in this matter was confirmed by the observations 
of Sergeants Rice and Frederick during the early days of No- 
vember. Standing near the summit of Cape Isabella, they had 
an uninterrupted view for many miles to the southward, and 
within the range of their vision not a piece of ice capable of 
offering the slightest obstruction to a vessel appeared. The 
waves rolling in from Melville Bay and dashing against the 
cliffs at their feet gave ample evidence of the scarcity of ice 
in the North Water, and the feasibility of its successful navi- 
gation. 



292 THE HAZE]^ COURT-MAETIAL. 

The plan proposed — to land a relief party on the Greenland 
coast, at or near Cape York, with the intention of affording 
succor to our expedition in the early spring of 1884— would 
without doubt have been successful under the energetic and 
experienced officer, Chief-Engineer Melville, who suggested it. 
There were many days during the month of May when the chan- 
nel between Ca^^e Sabine and the Greenland coast was so nearly 
cleared of ice that small boats from the opposite coast could 
have reached us in safety. It was a matter that was under al- 
most daily discussion in our miserable hut at Camp Clay, even 
when death's shadows were hovering darkly above us ; and I now 
reiterate what I had said then, '' The plan of relief from that 
source is practicable, and if undertaken it will be the means of 
averting a disaster which now appears imminent." 

In the views of Chief-Engineer Melville, relative to this 
plan, I heartily concur in every particular. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

D. L. Beaiitard, 

Sergeant S. C, U, S. A. 



THE HAZEN COUKT-MAETIAL. 293 



LETTER OF CONSUL MOLLOY. 

Ui^iTED States Coitsulate, 
St. John's, N. F., December 22, 1884. 

Gen. W. B. Hazen, Cliief Signal Office, Washington, D. C. : 

Deae Sir : Yours of 11 — 30 — 84 received, and I herewith 
beg to enclose Captain Pike and Captain Walshe's report, also 
three others, which hope will be found satisfactory. Later on 
I could obtain some further information from the IJundee whal- 
ing-masters, who will not arrive here before March. 

I have to thank Mr. Syme for considerable assistance in this 
matter. Anything I can do will be most happily done. Shall 
leave here for Washington about 10th January. 

Yours most respectfully, 

Thos. N". Mollot, 

U. S. Consul. 



294 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 



LETTEE OF HOK J. SYME. 

St. John's, K F., 22d December, 1884. 

My deae Hazeis" : I have your two notes. Anxious to as- 
sist you in fixing the blame on the parties responsible for the 
loss of life amongst the Greely party, I forward you statements 
from several parties who know whereof they speak, and who, I 
think, are known to Lieutenant Greely. 

I trust these statements will serve the purpose for which you 
require them ; but if not, and I can be of further use to you, 
command my services. 

If I may be allowed to give my own opinion, as I took a deep 
interest in the success of the expedition all through, it occurred 
to me that, on the return of the steamship Ya7itic, Captain 
Wylde and Lieutenant G-arlington's one and only thought should 
have been to devise means to fit out one of the five steamers 
that lay in the harbor unemployed, for the purpose of at least 
trying to reach their perishing countrymen in the frozen north, 
instead of wasting precious time in reporting aud circulating 
statements which could have been inquired into at a future time. 

It was only the other day I heard that you recommended im- 
mediately on arrival of Yantic the fitting out of a sealing steam- 
er to continue the search ; and I am glad for your sake that you 
did so, for it proved that you had not only a proper estimate of 
the probabilities of success, but that you had the heart to feel 
for those who were trusting that no effort to succor them on the 
part of yourself or your government would be considered too 
great. 

Mrs. Syme unites with me in wishing your lady, family, and 
self all the kind greetings of the season. 

Yours sincerely, 

J. Syme. 
Gekeral W. B. Hazen". 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 295 



CERTIFICATE OF HON. J. SYME AS TO THE CHA- 
RACTERS OF THE ICE -NAVIGATORS WHOSE 
STATEMENTS ARE APPENDED. 

I, the Honorable John Syme, of St. John's, Newfoundland, 
mercbant, beg to state that my connection with the seal-fishery 
amongst the northern ice-fields, as well as the general business 
of Newfoundland, has extended, over twenty-two years, and I 
have come in contact with the most successful and most intelli- 
gent of our ice-captains and others engaged in ice-navigation, 
but there are none better able to give an opinion on the subject 
of following up the Greely Relief Expedition last fall than the 
parties whose statements go herewith. 

J. Syme. 
St. John's, N. F., 20th Dec, 1884. 



296 THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 



STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN PIKE. 

Captain Ei chard Pike, of St. John's, Newfoundland, states : 
I have been engaged seal-hunting in the northern ice-fields for 
the past thirty-five years. I commanded the steamship Pro- 
teus, and landed Lieutenant Greely and his party at Lady Frank- 
lin Bay in the fall of 1881, and in the summer of 1883 I again 
commanded the steamship Proteiis when she was lost near Cape 
Sabine. From my knowledge of the Arctic regions and navi- 
gation amongst heavy northern ice-fields, I did expect a vessel 
would have been dispatched from St. John's immediately on 
arrival of Yantic steamship there, for the purpose of con- 
tinuing the effort to succor Lieutenant G-reely and his com- 
panions, and I volunteered to Lieutenant G-arlington to take 
charge. I most unhesitatingly affirm if a steamer such as the 
steamship Bear or Neptune had been fitted out and dispatched up 
to even 20th September, Cape Sabine would have been reached 
without any trouble, and this I expressed to Consul Molloy. 

A steamer could winter in many fine harbors on the west 
coast of Greenland, and would in all probability get free from 
her winter quarters during May month. 

After my return to St. John's I was very anxious that a 
steamer should have been fitted out with provisions to winter, if 
necessary; and plenty of first-rate men acquainted with ice-navi- 
gation offered to go, and, if necessary, remain over winter to search 
for Greely and his party. And this not being done, as well as 
the steamship Yantic not going back to land provisions and any 
lumber that could be spared for the purpose of providing for the 
wants of the explorers, led to the death of so many brave men. 

Had a steamer got to Littleton Island even, of which, hu- 
manly speaking, there would have been a certainty, such men 
as our seal-hunters would in any season, either with drift or 
frozen ice to overcome, have been able to cross over to Cape Sa- 
bine ; besides, a fire from either place would have been seen by 
those living at Cape Sabine or Littleton Island. 

KiCHARD Pike. 
St. JoHif's, N. F., 18th Dec, 1884. 



THE HAZEIS- COUKT-MAETIAL. 297 



STATEMENT OF ICE-PILOT WHITE. 

Thomas White, of St. John's, Newfoundland, at present in 
a position of trust in connection with the new graving-dock, 
aged thirty-eight, states : 

I have been engaged from boyhood in the general seafaring 
business of the colony — viz., seal-hunting, fishing, and foreign- 
going — and have occupied positions of responsibility in the seal- 
hunting line. I liave been a master of watch with Captain 
Pike, of Newfoundland, and Captain Fairweather, of Dundee, 
both of whom are famous for their knowledge of navio'ation 
amongst the northern ice-fields, as well as for the work done by 
them in the Arctic seas. 

In the year 1881 I was selected by Captain Eichard Pike to 
fill the position of second officer in the steamship Froteus, and 
the success of that expedition in landing Lieutenant Greely at 
Lady Franklin Bay, and the speedy return of the ship to St. 
John's, has become a matter of history. During the voyage I 
noted everything relatmg to the drift-ice and the navigation in 
these northern waters, as I hoped I would be one of those who 
would be selected to bring back Lieutenant Greely and his com- 
panions. Unfortunately the wish was ungratified, by my being 
on fishing service when the Proteus was fitted out in 1883 as a 
relief ship. 

When the steamship Yantic arrived back with the Proteus'' 
shipwrecked crew I was so fully impressed with the belief that 
a steamer fitted out immediately and dispatched to Cape Sa- 
bine would have reached that point before the northern water 
got frozen up, that I expressed the opinion the authorities had 
missed the chance of rescuing the explorers. 

At that time there were four suitable sealing steamers avail- 
able for the work, and which could have been dispatched within 
fort3'-eight hours after the Yantic's arrival. A splendid crew 
of men and officers could have been obtained at an hoar's no- 
tice, and these men would have had no objection to winter in 



298 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

many of tlie good and safe harbors on the west coast of Green- 
land, had there been a necessity to do so ; but I was conyiiiced 
there would be no such contingency. 

I conceived a great liking for Lieutenant Greely on the voy- 
age north, and would have gladly risked venturing in the Arctic 
regions to succor him. Even to reach Pandora Harbor, which 
was certain of being accomplished, a party of our sealers, used 
to boating amongst drift-ice or to walking over ice, would have 
communicated with Cape Sabine during the fall or winter. It 
is no unusual thing for our seal-hunters to walk fifteen or 
twenty miles at a stretch over drift-ice in the open sea. 

It was a fatal mistake not to dispatch a steamer on arrival 
of Yantic, as all avIio have a knowledge here of Arctic naviga- 
tion expressed the same opinion. Those who gave contrary ad- 
vice must have both felt and known that they would be acces- 
sory to the death of the explorers. 

Thomas White. 

St. JoHiq-'s, IST. E., 20th Dec, 1884. 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 299 



STATEMENT OF ICE-PILOT AVALSH. 

Captain Samuel AYalsh, of Sfc. John's, Newfoundland, 
states : I have been engaged in the seal and whale fishery, the 
former for many years, and have commanded some of the best 
steamers engaged in these perilous ventures amongst the heavy 
northern ice-fields. In the summer of 1883 I occupied the po- 
sition of pilot to steamship Yantic, which accompanied the 
steamship Proteus as relief ship to the Greely expedition. 

On my return to St. John's, I am positively certain had a 
suitable vessel, such as the steamshij) Bear, been fitted out — 
without loss of time — she would have reached Cape Sabine, or 
in that neighborhood, before navigation had closed up to that 
point, and I should have unhesitatingly and gladly volunteered 
my services as pilot. 

A steamer could winter at many points on the west coast of 
Greenland, and from such winter quarters she would get free 
some time in May month. 

There were three or four suitable vessels available for the 
work, which could have been dispatched within forty-eight 
hours after arrival of steamship Y antic ; and the idea being 
abroad amongst seamen acquainted with ice-navigation, several 
men applied to be engaged. Had those in command of steam- 
ship Yantic or the expedition gone back and landed some ra- 
tions or spare board, Avhich I wondered much at not being done, 
the lives of Greely and his party would assuredly have been 
saved. Had the vessel so dispatched reached Pandora Harbor 
before close of navigation, she could have wintered there — and I 
know assuredly she would have reached that point. Our hardy 
seal-hunters would have crossed to Cape Sabine, either in boats 
amongst drift-ice or on the ice, and thus brought succor to 
Greely and his party. 

Samuel Walsh. 

St. John's, N. E., lath Dec, 1884. 



800 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 



STATEMENT OF WILLIAM CAELSON. 

William Carlson, of St. John's, Newfoundland, a native of 
Sweden, states : I was steadily employed trading between Green- 
land and Iceland for two years, and had considerable experience 
in navigating amongst ice during that time. 

I have been engaged at the Newfoundland seal-fishery for 
thirteen years, and have seen all the roughs and smooths in the 
navigation of heavy northern ice during that time. I was on 
board of the steamship Proteus when she took Lieutenant 
Greely and his party to Lady Franklin Bay, and also on the 
second occasion when she was lost near Cape Sabine. 

After our being picked up by the steamship Yantic on the 
Greenland coast, it was a matter of surprise to me (and this I did 
not hesitate to express to Captain Pike and others) why Captain 
Wilde or Lieutenant Garlington did not return to Cape Sabine 
and land a portion of stores that they had, knowing that Lieu- 
tenant Greely and his party were exjoected at that point, if a 
vessel failed to reach them at Lady Franklin Bay ; and had this 
been done the lives of the brave men that perished would have 
been saved. Even after the Yantic' s return to St. John's, had a 
vessel such as Bear or Neptune been fitted out, there is not the 
shadow of a doubt in my mind bnt the vessel would have suc- 
ceeded in reaching Cape Sabine, or the neighborhood. 

A crew could have been got in St. John's, of first-class men, 
to have manned the ship, either to return or stay over the win- 
ter ; and there are many good harbors on the west coast of 
Greenland where a vessel could have entered, and in May month 
no doubt vessel would have been released. 

There is no doubt it was a fatal mistake not to send a vessel 
down after arrival of Yantic. 

William Caklsoi^. 
St. John's, N. F., 18th Dec, 1884. 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAKTIAL. 301 



STATEMENT OF ENGINEER McPHERSON. 

Peter McPherson, of Sfc. John's, Newfoundland, engineer, 
holding a first-class English certificate, states he has been ten 
years acting in the capacity of engineer in sealing steamers, and 
has had large experience in the management of steamers amongst 
the ice-fields of the frozen north. 

He had charge of the engine department of steamship Proteus 
when that vessel landed the Greely party at Discovery Harbor 
in 1881, and took a deep interest in everything pertaining to 
the success of the expedition ; he also took careful note of the 
land, harbors, working of tlie ice and currents, thinking the 
observations so noted might be of advantage to him or others if 
engaged in the relief mission. 

From the knowledge so acquired, I feel confident there would 
have been no difiSculty in such vessels as steamships Bear, Eagle, 
Falcon, or Ranger reaching Cape Sabine or neighborhood last 
fall, had any one of them been dispatched within two or three 
days after arrival of steamship Yantic in St. John's ; and the 
vessels just named were coaled and ready for immediate em- 
ployment. I consider those charged with the relief of the noble 
band of explorers acted with culpable apathy in not making 
what at the time, there was no reason to doubt, would be a suc- 
cessful effort. Even supposing the relief ship only reached 
Pandora Harbor, which to my mind was a certainty, a crew of 
Newfoundland sealers would, during the fall or winter, have 
communicated with Cape Sabine ; for these men are in their 
element either in boats amongst drift-ice or on frozen ice and 
snow. 

On my voyage north in steamship Proteus I noticed many 
fine harbors south of Cape Sabine where a steamer could safely 
winter, and the probabilities are she would be released before 
the end of May in any year. 

Peter McPhersok. 



St. JoHi^'s, N. F., 20th Dec, 1884. 



302 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 



TEMPERATURE (FAHRENHEIT) AT UPERNAVIK, LATITUDE 
N. 73° 47', LONGITUDE W. 56°, WINTER 1883-4. FURNISHED 
BY THE METEOROLOGICAL BUREAU OF DENMARK. 





October, 


November, 


December, 


January, 


February, 


March, 


April, 




1883. 


1883. 


1883. 


1884. 


1884. 


1884. 


1884. 


1 


+ 33.6 


+30.3 


o 

6.3 


o 

-14.1 


- 3.3 


-33.3 


+ 10.2 


2 


31.8 


33.1 


5.3 


-16.1 


-15.0 


-35.8 


9.1 


3 


35.7 


13.8 


3.9 


-30.4 


-15.0 


-11.4 


- 0.6 


4 


36.1 


19.3 


38.3 


-31.3 


-19.5 


-33.3 


- 4.3 


5 


30.9 


18.9 


14.7 


-16.8 


-33.6 


-30.4 


-10.7 


6 


33.3 


16.5 


33.7 


- 3.1 


-39.4 


+38.9 


-17.1 


7 


31.1 


19.9 


16.0 


+14.3 


-33.0 


- 3.5 


-14.4 


8 


31.0 


14.9 


- 0.3 


- 5.1 


-36.7 


-16.4 


- 7.4 


9 


31.0 


10.9 


- 3.4 


- 8.7 


-23.1 


-16.1 


- 3.1 


10 


31.9 


16.5 


- 8.9 


-15.0 


-23.6 


-17.9 


- 0.9 


11 


31.9 


35.5 


-11.4 


-13.9 


-33.9 


-11.7 


- 1.5 


13 


31.9 


30.1 


- 9.6 


- 3.4 


-34.8 


+ 4.8 


- 3.3 


13 


33.1 


17.8 


-10.5 


+ 5.7 


-30.3 


+ 4.8 


+ 0.5 


14 


31.9 


17.8 


- 7.1 


- 3.7 


-30.3 


+ 0.1 


-33.9 


15 


33.7 


31.7 


- 6.7 


- 4.3 


-19.5 


-14.6 


+33.8 


16 


33.1 


21.0 


+ 3.9 


-12.8 


+ 0.3 


-18.2 


+33.6 


17 ' 


19.6 


19.4 


+ 10.3 


-16.4 


15.8 


-25.1 


16.7 


18 


16.7 


17.4 


+ 1.9 


-20.4 


3.9 


-19.7 


15.6 


19 


33.8 


17.4 


- 9.3 


-31.3 


- 3.4 


-14.3 


11.7 


30 


39.1 


13.5 


- 8.5 


-18.3 


+ 1.3 


- 8.1 


8.6 


31 


35.3 


10.6 


- 9.3 


-36.3 


4.8 


-10.8 


16.3 


33 


34.3 


10.3 


- 9.6 


-25.4 


13.0 


-11.4 


31.1 


33 


30.3 


9.1 


-17.1 


-28.5 


- 3.3 


-15.7 


31.9 


34 


37.9 


5.9 


-19.5 


-33.0 


- 6.7 


- 9.2 


8.4 


35 


33.8 


1.3 


-17.5 


-29.4 


+ 8.4 


+ 0.1 


8.1 


36 


33.1 


4.1 


-16.1 


-30.1 


- 6.0 


- 9.6 


18.1 


37 


19.6 


3.9 


-33.3 


-28.5 


-17.9 


- 7.1 


14.3 


38 


30.7 


36.1 


-25.8 


-22.2 


-19.5 


+ 3.4 


7.7 


39 


15.6 


34.6 


-35.8 


-23.5 


-15.0 


- 4.9 


6.6 


30 


30.3 


15.6 


-36.5 


- 4.5 




+ 0.1 


- 0.3 


31 


33.9 




-33.6 


+ 6.6 




- 6.3 




Means 

1 


+34.3 


+15.8 


-5.3 


-14.8 


-13.4 


-9.8 


+5.5 



Originals in Centigrade ; observations taken at 8 a.m. London time. 
Irue copij. 



B. M. PURSELL, 
2d Lieutenant, Signal Corps, U. S. Army' 

Signal Office, Washington City, 
May 6, 1885. 



THE HAZEN COUKT-MAKTIAL. 



303 





gp^i^g 


S 


Sfs^ 


S85 


» 


^ 


5w 


^ 


wS 


^ 00 <J p p _*- CO M --t 
























'vr'to' • ■ "OCOC" 00 


1 A.M. 












































HSwpl^_^,SI:5pf::5^ I 3a.m. 

•c;^b5■^^• • • 'lo'io'v^' 1 






















"cit 'a> 'en I-' '^s ' 






















£S5p.!£.^^.:^§iSf*. 5 a.m. 


- 








i ; ^ 










-3Co' ■ 'h^^oxioco' bo 


6 A.M. 














"ot" '■ 


'coot •^bo-i bo 




















^ 


S5StlE2$Sggl1^_^ 1 8A.M. 




p 

bo 


Pi i ^i i 










E2 


't« '01 bo iyi 'w "co •jo "t)^ 1 I 




OT- ■ bt • 




^1 




." 




32.6 
29.7 
29.5 

27.7 

27. 

30.1 

23. 

11. 

15.2 

14.8 


g : S: : _^: : 

' 'or'- '■ 'v^'- '■ 


bc^ 




^ 


SS:oSg^i§?g^: 11a.m. 
00 bo bo CO bo- 




■ •oi en • 'or 




j^ 


bo CO or '01 or b» 'iO 


12 m. 






: : J2: 


.^ 




: ■ ■ ■ br^H-^'c^CC^rfi^' •q'-I^CO 




bo • • 


bo 


30.5 
31.3 
30.6 
28.5 
25.4 

22!' 
15.3 

17.8 

15. 
16.8 


2 P.M. 




; .^: : 




30.2 

28. 

29.3 

29. 

27.5 

27.5 

21.6 

19.1 

18. 

16. '8 


3 P.M. 




5 rg. 

00 Ol- 


: ?° 




4 P.M. 








CO CO to!:;' tocokibo 


5 P.M. 






: : g : p-.8ESS: ^^^ 
: : ■ : * • bT-^•^s• •j^bcb 


6 P.M. 






25.1 

27.5 

26.2 

26.5 

14. 

21.6 

19.5 

13. 

15.3 

19. 
26. 


7 p.m. 


23. 
11.2 


• o 


'■ "co h' K)' "co • 00 bt 


8 P.M. 






(J'' ' ' ' '■ tS^4^CO 


9 P.M. 




: p 1^00*^SJ^; COpO 

'■ ' ' 'u^'^h'^'- ' ' ' 


10 P.M. 




O • lO' Ot 1 




• ^ • •^^ •^-i bo "or 'ot 


12 P.M. 


i 





t^ ^ 5 

K ^ « 

H td ^ 

„ K t> 



cc 



§:^,. 

H ^ a 

r ?3 > 
> g W 

H o >- 
^ g ^ 

fl ITJ t=J 

^ c o 

q o -^ 

2 ^ a 

iz; o a 

p H o 

H H^ !^ 

o ^ ^ 

^ ^ s 



^^^ 






o 



K 



?:3 



S P^ 



§3 



304 



THE HAZEN- COURT-MAETIAL. 



TEMPERATURES OBSERVED NEAR CAPE SABINE, 
OCTOBER, 1883. 





7 A.M. 


9a.m. 


11 A.M. 


1 P.M. 


2 p.m. 


4 p.m. 


6 p.m. 


7 p.m. 


5 p.m. 


Minimum. 


1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 


..:... 


o 

25. 


° 


° 


° 


o 


26.5 


o 


9.7 


- 6. 

- 7. 
-12.5 

- 6.5 

- 9. 
-13. 

- 3.5 

-16. 

- 5.5 

- 4. 

-20.5 
-17.5 
+ 5. 

- 8. 
+ 2. 


24. 






8. 





17. 

17. 

15. 


12.5 

12. 

12. 


16. 


16. 










-4 

-8.5 






























3. 










-1. 








1. 















































































- 1.5 

- 1.5 
4. 

-16. 




























































12 m. -2°. 
11 A.M. 2°. 













True extract from records on file in Signal Office. 

B. M. PURSELL, 
2d Lieut., Signal Corps, U. S. A. 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 



305 



TEMPERATURE OP THE AIR AT ST. JOHN'S, N. F., DURING 
THE MONTHS OF SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, 1883. 



September, 1883. 


October, 1883. 


Date. 


Temp. Fah. 


Date. 


Temp. Fah. 


Date. 


Temp. Fah. 


Date. 


Temp. Fah, 




o 









o 







1 


52 


16 


57 


1 


47 


16 


36 


2 


62 


17 


55 


2 


46 


17 


34 


3 


68 


18 


59 


3 


47 


18 


38 


4 


54 


19 


52 


4 


48 


19 


36 . 


5 


49 


20 


60 


5 


41 


20 


47 


6 


58 


21 


49 


6 


37 


21 


52 


7 


57 


22 


50 


7 


38 


22 


41 


8 


49 


23 


52 


8 


47 


23 


38 


9 


55 


24 


49 


9 


50 


24 


33.5 


10 


56 


25 


51 


10 


44 


25 


37 


11 


54 


26 


48 


11 


58 


26 


38 


12 


53 


27 


47 


12 


44 


27 


39 


13 


53 


28 


45 


13 


45 


28 


34 


14 


56 


29 


54 


14 


52 


29 


33 


15 


48 


30 


48 


15 


48 


30 
31 


28 
47 




Mean. . . . 





53°. 




Mean . . . 




42°. 1 







True extract from the records on file in tiie Signal Office. 

B. M PURSELL, 
2d Lieut, Signal Corps, U. S. A. 



306 THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 



FEOM GENERAL HAZEN, PEOTESTING AGAINST 
SECRETARY LINOOLISF'S REFUSAL TO FORWARD 
HIS LETTERS TO CONGRESS. 

Wae Depaetmekt, 
Office Chief Sigkal Officer, 

Washingtois" City, June 7, 1882. 

To the Honorable tlie Secretary of War : 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the 
action of the Secretary of War on my letters of May 25 and 26, 
declining to forward the same for the information of Congress. 
This leads me to believe that the purpose of those letters was 
not understood. 

The lives of the party at Lady Franklin Bay depend solely 
upon timely action here and in the matter in question, and the 
purpose of those letters was to lay before Congress wliat ap- 
pears to me a very important fact. The ship must sail from 
St. John's, Newfoundland, by July 1 in order to insure the 
fullest chances of reacliing tlie party, and my letter of May 12, 
1882, was written to impress this fact strongly upon Congress. 
But the statement of the Secretary of War, through the Presi- 
dent, to Congress, in his letter of May 18, 1882, that he did not 
know that there was an understanding to keep up these Arctic 
stations, leaves the inference that there was no such under- 
standing, which cannot fail to weaken the object of my letter, 
since it takes away a part of the moral obligation to give the 
party timely support. 

It was to lay the fact before Congress, in its own joublished 
reports [which it may have forgotten], that the expedition was 
one for continuous work, requiring continuous support, in place 
of one such as it was fair to infer it was from the letter of the 
Secretary of War — that the expedition had been authorized for 
a season, but that the Chief Signal Officer, at his own instance, 
had seen fit to perpetuate it, and had reserved no part of the 
original fund intended to bring the party back. 



THE HAZEI^- COURT-MARTIAL. 307 

It was to correct this wrong imiiression with the President, 
and with such members of Congress as should be impressed 
with the Secretary's letter, that these letters were sent. 

It was to lay before Congress the obligation to send this 
aid speedily, as shoAvn in the enclosures, which are the original 
reports of Congress on the subject. 

As the head of the Bureau immediately responsible for the 
fitting out of this expedition, and who will now be held to a 
strict account for the timely succor of the party, I forwarded 
these facts, which it was imperative for Congress to know for its 
intelligent action. 

In forwarding these papers (in view of the fact that his 
former letter for Congress was sent back to him) it would seem 
to the Chief Signal Officer, whose duties constitute him the 
custodian of the detailed information now required in this case, 
that he is forbidden to give to Congress all the information 
needed for its full understanding of the case, or to show to them 
the absolute obligation and necessity of speedy action ; for every 
day the relief vessel is delayed in sailing after July 1 lessens the 
chances of reaching these men at all. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

W. B. Hazek, 

Brig, and Bvt, Maj.-Gen., Chief Sig, Officer, U. S, A, 



308 THE HAZE]^ COUET-MAETIAL. 



LIEUTENANT GEEELY ON GARLINGTON'S DISOBE- 
DIENCE OF ORDERS. 

Camp Clay, near Cape Sabike, 
April 30, 1884. 

Gei^eral : The unfortunate death by drowning of our re- 
maining Eskimo hunter renders it very possible that the re- 
mainder of us perish by starvation, although we hope for ulti- 
mate safety. Jens' Kayak was probably cut through by ice and 
was lost with him. We lost, January 18, Sergeant Cross by 
scurvy, and, during April, Esk. Frederick, Lieutenant Lock- 
wood, Sergeants Jewell and Lynn by starvation. Sergeant Rice 
perished by exhaustion in Baird Inlet in a noble attempt to pro- 
long our existence by recovering the English meat abandoned 
in November last, when Sergeant Elison lost his hands and feet 
by freezing. The rest of us are living on twelve ounces meat 
and a few shrimps daily, having enough to last until May 12. 
Several — Lieutenant K., Sergeants Israel, Gardiner, and Stew- 
ard Bierderbeck — are in low condition, and I presumably am 
next in dangerous condition. Sergeant Long killed a seal, and 
he and Jens killed a small bear^ which has so far saved our lives, 
coming too late to save those named as dead. / cannot refrain 
from saying that had Lieutenant Qarlington carried out your 
orders and replaced the tiuo hundred and forty rations rum and 
one hundred and tiuenty alcohol in English cache here, and the 
tiuo hundred and ten pounds mouldy English hread, spoiled Eng- 
lish chocolate and potatoes, melted sugar, and the two hundred ten 
pounds rotten dog-hiscuit, we loould luithout doubt le saved. We 
lived all winter on an incredibly small ration, and it seems dou- 
bly hard to perish in summer within a month or six weeks of 
final relief. The following orders have been verbally issued by 
me, and will, I trust, be confirmed by you and the War Depart- 
ment : Private H. Bierderbeck to be a hospital steward, first class. 



THE UAZEl^ COUET-MARTIAL. 309 

July 19, 1883. Sergeant Coniiell reduced September — , 1883, 
and Private Linn promoted to sergeant same date. Private J. K. 
Fredericks to be sergeant vice Cross, January 18, 1884. Private 
F. Long to be sergeant April 11, 1884, vice Linn, dead. Cor- 
poral J. Elison, Company E, Tenth Infantry, transferred to Sig- 
nal Corps and promoted to be observer-sergeant April — , 1884, 
vice Eice, dead. Sergeant D. L. Brainard, G. S., assigned to 
Signal Service as an observer-sergeant April — , 1884, vice Jewell, 
dead. These promotions, etc., have been made for extraordi- 
nary services and in the best interests of the service. I cannot 
too strongly urge that Sergeant Brainard be commissioned in 
the line if he returns. His services have been simply extraor- 
dinary and invaluable. Lieutenant Kislingbury was formally 
reassigned to duty April — , 1884, the date of Lieutenant Lock- 
wood's death. He has broken down physically and mentally, 
and Sergeant Brainard is ordered to assume charge in case of 
my death. The men, with one or two exceptions, have met the 
privations and sufferings in a noble, manly, patient way. Dr. 
Pavy has been systematically plundering his crippled patient 
from November till April. Besides Sergeant Elison and myself, 
who have detected him, four others have sworn to having seen 
him. I state this that public opinion may curse the man if he, 
as seems possible, lives to return. I write as from my grave, 
and with no personal or bitter feeling. As regards the discov- 
eries made, it has been my intention and wishes that tlie most 
northerly land should be called Hazen Land or coast ; the west 
coast of Grinnell Land and Greely Fiord, Garfield Land or 
coast ; the land on which Cape Lockwood is situated, which is 
thought to be distinct and separate, Arthur Land. The land 
west of Hayes Sound, and which Sergeant Long thinks closes 
it, I have not named, leaving it to you. For the first time in 
two hundred and seventy-five years England yields the honors 
of the farthest north, and I trust that the nation will not be too 
neglectful of those dependent on the men who have done this 
work. The Eskimo families I hope will be pensioned, and, if 
possible, that my wife and children have a proper pension. — 
May 5, 1884. 

I have been ill, and fear the worst in my own case. Lieu- 



810 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

tenant K. being unfit in health for command, I have directed 
Sergeant Brainard to assume command. 

A. W. Geeelt, 

1st Lt. 6t7i Cav., A, S. 0. and AssH Com'Wg Exp^dH^n, 

Sergeant Brainard's name as of the Signal Service should 
be associated on the map with Lieutenant Lockwood's as mak- 
ing the highest north. 

A. w. a. 

A true copy of original, which is in pencil on one sheet. 

B. W. PUKSELL, 

Sec. Lieut. Signal Corps, U. S. A, 
September 16, 1884. 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 311 



LETTER OF GENERAL HAZEN URGING THAT LIEU- 
TENANT GARLINGTON BE BROUGHT TO TRIAL. 

Washin'GTON', D. C, January 30, 1885. 

HoK. Robert T. Lin^coli^, Secretary of War : 

Sir : On the 21st instant I had the honor to address a letter 
to the Secretary of War, in which I urged that, as an act of 
justice to me, a court-martial should be ordered for the trial of 
Lieutenant Garlington on the charges that I had preferred 
against him. 

The terms in which the Secretary of War declined to grant 
my application satisfy me that the bearing of those charges on 
the question of my own imputed responsibility, for the disaster 
to the Lady Franklin Bay Expedition, has not been rightly ap- 
prehended. 

I refer especially to the following extract from the endorse- 
ment on my letter : 

"The Secretary does not think that the result of a trial of Lieutenant 
Garlington would properly affect the record of another officer, or that his 
trial could be ordered upon such a consideration." 

I respectfully submit that the view thus presented has never 
been sanctioned in practice, nor by any authority upon military 
law. Where two officers are charged with correlative duties in 
the execution of a common plan, and one is unjustly stigmatized 
as in some degree responsible for a disastrous result, it may hap- 
pen that the only available defence will be for such accused 
officer to show by legal proof that not he, but his subordinate, 
had produced such result by disobedience of orders. Tliis very 
principle was involved in the memorable trial of Major-General 
Fitz-John Porter. 

Through that trial Major-General Pope was relieved of the 
damaging imputation of having incurred defeat at the second 



312 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

Manassas by a defectiye plan of battle or a faulty disposition of 
his forces. 

He proved to the satisfaction of the court that such defeat 
was due to General Porter's disobedience of orders in failing to 
attack at a critical stage of the battle. 

Whatever may have been the real facts or merits of that 
case, the principle on which it was decided has never been ques- 
tioned. 

The same principle may be exemplified by supposing the 
case of a commander in the field whose forces are surprised at 
night in their encampment. 

A court of inquiry convened soon after finds that the 
surprise was due, primarily, to a lamentable defect of judg- 
ment in such commander in failing to properly picket the 
roads, etc. 

The commander thus censured subsequently discovers evi- 
dence by which he can conclusively prove that the officer who 
commanded the pickets stationed on the very road by which the 
enemy advanced had, in violation of orders, fallen back without 
firing a shot, and hence the surprise and defeat. 

The court, however, that had directed its attention and 
criticism chiefly to the commander's plan of campaign, having 
found that such subordinate officer had only erred in judgment, 
it would follow, according to the principle announced, that, 
despite any amount of newly-discovered evidence, no court-mar- 
tial should be ordered for the trial of the guilty subordinate, 
and his commander must continue to rest under imputations 
that are provably false. 

The case supposed does not materially differ in principle 
from that under consideration. 

A court of inquiry found that my subordinate officer was 
urged to undue haste by my orders, which had the alleged 
effect of clouding his mental vision ; that the plan formulated 
by me for his guidance was fatally defective, and directly 
conduced to the failure of the expedition commanded by such 
officer. 

Many months after the court of inquiry was dissolved the 
disaster occurred which is now known to have been the result 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 313 

of that failure, and whicli involved the sacrifice of a number of 
lives by starvation. I now offer to prove beyond a reasonable 
doubt, both by newly-discovered evidence and by material facts 
formerly in proof, but which were either ignored or miscon- 
strued by the court, that the officer who commanded the relief 
expedition actually deserted his post and deliberately violated 
his instructions in their most vital point, and thus the disaster 
followed almost inevitably, although such officer possessed ade- 
quate means to prevent it. 

Sincerely believing that the Secretary of War has not con- 
sidered the case in this, its true aspect, I respectfully invite his 
attention to this presentation of it, with the view to a reconsid- 
eration of the position taken in the endorsement from which I 
have quoted. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
W. B. Hazeis^ 
Brig, and Bvt. Maj.-Gen., Chief 8ig, Officer, U. S, A. 



314 THE HAZEIT COUKT-MAKTIAL. 



STATEMENT OF W. H. LAMAE, JK., SEEGEANT 
SIGNAL COEPS. 

Washington, D. C, December 3, 1884. 

Geneeal W. B. Hazen, OMef Signal Officer, U. S. A. : 

SiK : In compliance with your request I have the honor to 
submit the following report and accompanying chart: 

The Greely relief party left this city at 9.50 p.m., June 11, 
1883, and on the following morning went aboard the United 
States steamsliip Yantic in the Brooklyn JSTayy-Yard. The 
day passed and Lieutenant Garlington said nothing to the Sig- 
nal Service observers about comparison of instruments in New 
York. On the morning of the 13th we learned that the vessel 
would sail at 4 p.m. Knowing that we had instructions to 
compare some instruments in New York, we went to Lieuten- 
ant Garlington. I asked him what we were to do about the 
matter. *' Don't you do anything until you are ordered," was 
his quick and irritated reply. I said : '^ Well, lieutenant, we 
have received very explicit instructions in regard to making 
these comparisons, and, as the Signal Office is looking to us to 
do our work well, I thought it but proper to call your attention 
to this subject before leaving this place"; to which he replied 
in the same irritated manner: "Yes, old Abbe, and, among 
them, have got up a lot of d — d instructions about your work. 
It is too late now to do anything about it ; the vessel sails at 2 
o'clock." I then told him I would like to have a copy of the 
instructions. He said that he only had one copy of tliem; that 
he would let me have those, but that we must be very careful 
with them, as this was the only copy he had, and that he had 
not read them. He got the instructions at once and gave them 
to me, and I kept them until we reached St. John's. At that 
place the instructions contemplated scientific work for us, but 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 315 

in disregard of them Lieutenant Garlington ordered us to other 
work not in tlie line of our duty, and said nothing about the 
work we were instructed to do at that place. We knew that he 
had not read these instructions, and therefore if we said no- 
thing we should fail entirely to accomplish our mission; so, after 
consultation, we decided that if we could only get him to read 
the instructions he could not fail to see the importance of our 
work, and would give us an opportunity to comply with our in- 
structions. So we carried them to him and told him that our 
duties with the expedition were other than those he had as- 
signed us; that our reputation at the Signal Office depended 
upon the manner in which we performed the important work 
entrusted to us; that he was not giving us a fair opportunity to 
perform our duties, and insisted upon his reading the instruc- 
tions. He seemed enraged that we should presume to approach 
him on the subject, and told us that our duties would be the 
same as the regular Army party. We protested that we were 
detailed for special duty, and that from his instructions he 
would find that this special work was calculated to occupy every 
moment of our time; that this was the service we had volun- 
teered for, and that it was entirely different from that of the 
regular Army party. He was very angry, and ordered us back 
to work shifting the cargo of the Proteus. He took the instruc- 
tions, but in a few minutes handed them to Ellis without read- 
ing them, saying that he did not have time to read them then, 
but that he would call for them some time when he was at leisure. 
We kept them until the Proteus sank. He never called for 
them, and could never have read them. Whenever approached 
in regard to our work in any way he always became irritated, 
and answered pettishly, so we avoided contact with him as 
much as possible, never speaking to him except when it was 
absolutely necessary in order to carry on our work. 

The instructions required him to issue to each man a blank- 
book for a diary. These books were with observers' stationery 
supplies, and were unpacked at St. John's, and kept ready to 
be issued when called for by Lieutenant Garlington. This he 
never did. 

The Proteus was the same vessel that took Lieutenant Gree- 



316 THE HAZEN COUKT-MAETIAL. 

ly's party to the Arctic in 1881. The cabin was very large, 
haying ten berths besides those in the captain's state-room. In 
this cabin Lieutenant Greely took two lieutenants, the surgeon, 
and all of his observers; but Lieutenant G-arlington packed these 
berths full of bedding, and could not find room for his two ob- 
servers, who were always on duty in that portion of the ship, 
and in all kinds of weather had to go the entire length of the 
ship, over a deck stacked with lumber, to take observations. His 
attention was called by Captain Pike to the disposition Lieuten- 
ant Greely had made of his men, and the captain offered to ac- 
commodate Ellis and myself in the cabin; but Lieutenant Gar- 
lington would not agree to such an arrangement, but forced us 
to go into the dirty forecastle of the ship and eat and sleep with 
the sailors, his own description of whom is to be found in his 
report. It is a noteworthy fact, which I respectfully submit, 
that, whilst Lieutenant Garlington refused his observers per- 
mission to accept the accommodations oifered by the captain 
and provided by the government, these observers were pay- 
ing out of their own private means as much for ship's fare 
as himself. 

The Proteus entered Smith Sound on the morning of July 
22. No ice was to be seen with the large glass from the crow's 
nest. Pandora Harbor was reached about 6 a.m. Lieutenant 
Garlington went ashore to examine the cairn, and at 7 a.m. we 
started for Littleton Island, which was passed between 8 and 9 
o'clock, but no one landed to examine the cache. Passing Lit- 
tleton Island, the ship was headed northward. At 11.36 a.m. 
we met the solid ice-pack, which extended from Cape Inglefield 
to Cape Sabine. The Proteus steamed along the edge of the 
pack to Payer Harbor, but not the slightest opening could be 
discovered by the watch in the crow's nest, so the captain de- 
cided to go into Payer Harbor and wait for a change in the ice. 
He told me that he was not discouraged by meeting this bar- 
rier; that in a few days great changes would take place in the 
ice; that we were at least ten days earlier than any one else had 
ever passed Cape Sabine; that he would go into Payer Harbor 
and spend several days filling his bunkers with coal, and would 
then go out and see about the ice. After this conversation with 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAllTIAL. ol7 

Captain Pike I went to Lieutenant Garlington and told liim 
that, as the vessel was going to stop several days, Ellis and my- 
self would like to make some magnetic observations on the 
shore. He then spoke to Captain Pike about the time we 
should remain at Payer Harbor, and Captain Pike repeated 
about what he had just told me. Lieutenant Garlington 
made no objection to the delay, and when the vessel anchored 
at 2 P.M. he put us ashore with our instruments, and went on 
round the cape to examine tlie Beebe cache. He returned be- 
tween 5 and 6 o'clock and reported open water towards Cape 
Albert, and Ellis and myself were called to hurry on board with 
our instruments. At 7 p.m. the vessel was again under way. I 
soon met Captain Pike on deck, and asked him why his plans 
had been changed so suddenly. He said Lieutenant Garlington 
thought he had discovered open water to the northward, but 
that he had told him his men in the crow's nest with the large 
glass had not seen it, and he did not think there was any safe 
water there, and that, besides that, he wished to fill his bunk- 
ers; but that Lieutenant Garlington insisted upon his going at 
once, saying that he (Pike) would not be doing his duty to 
the United States government or Lieutenant Greely's party if 
he did not go at once. That he then started under protest. 
He told me that in his opinion it was very dangerous, and 
entirely unnecessary, to attempt to force a passage thi-ough 
the ice. 

Passing round Cape Sabine, the vessel was put into a narrow 
lead extending in almost a straight line from Cape Sabine to 
Cape Albert. This lead was followed till we were nearing Cape 
Albert, when it closed, and all the heavy ramming that follow- 
ed failed to break a passage through to the open pool of water 
round Cape Albert. At 11.30 p.m. the vessel was turned about, 
and after retreating several miles back towards Cape Sabine 
she was put in another lead, which extended several miles 
in a northeasterly direction, and then turned almost at right 
angles in a northwesterly direction, entering the pool of open 
water around Cape Albert a little northeast of the Cape. At 
2 A.M. of the 23d the Proteus was nipped and held for two 
hours near the close of this lead. At this point the ice was 



318 ., THE IIAZET^ COURT-MAKTIAL. 

light and no damage was done to the ship by the nip. At 4 
A.M. tlie lead reopened and we steamed forward only to find 
that the open pool of water had vanished and heavy ice-pack 
was in its place. Lientenant Garliiigton was now satisfied to 
return to Cape Sabine. We entered the lead which we had 
abandoned on the night before, but which was now our only 
chance of escape, and hurried back to Cape Sabine, passing 
without difficulty through the heavy floes that stopped the ves- 
sel on the previous evening. Our hasty retreat was almost con- 
cluded, only a few hundred yards more would bring us to the 
open water, when the treacherous lead closed, and at 2.45 p.m. 
the vessel was nipped between the heavy floes, she was crushed, 
and at 6.05 p.m., when the lead again opened, she sank, leaving 
us upon the ice. 

As soon as the nip occurred Lieutenant Garlington set all 
the men to work getting provisions on deck, and when it be- 
came evident that the vessel could not withstand the enormous 
pressure the stores were thrown upon the ice on both sides of 
the vessel by those on board and carried back to a safe place by 
those on the ice. The ship's party worked in the stern of the 
vessel, most of their provisions being in the cabin store-room. 
The expedition party worked in the forward hatch and forward 
peak, where our supplies were kept ; hence there was very little 
chance for collisions between the two parties — in fact, it was 
only those members of both parties on the ice tliat could see 
each other, those on board being the length of the ship apart, 
and with engine-works between them. 

Our party worked effectively and as hard as they were able 
to work, many of us to perfect exhaustion. Before we left the 
ship, and while we were working at the forward hatch, it struck 
me that in case of a wreck the charts, boat compasses, and 
-chronometers which we had in the cabin would be almost indis- 
pensable, so I ventured to suggest to Lieutenant Garlington 
that it would be well for me to go and get them out on the ice. 
He replied with great excitement: ^'Damn the instruments; 
save provisions." After the vessel was crushed in, and most of 
lis were on the ice, I was getting articles away from near the 
vessel, and if I did not happen to get the very articles he had in 



THE ITAZEN COUIlT-MArvTIAL. 319 

liis own mind he wonlcl rail in a most disagreeable manner to 
me. Convinced that I could do more effectual service away 
h'om Lieutenant Garlington, I took the first opportunity to get 
on the port floe under the command of Lieutenant Colwell, who 
was always cool and calculating, never becoming fretted, in- 
spiring respect and confidence in every one. Had it not been for 
his presence of mind at tlie wreck our largest and best whale- 
boat, Avliich was indispensable to a successful retreat, and much, 
if not all, of the provisions on the port floe would have been lost. 
I remained with his party till this floe was abandoned. When. 
the vessel sank the lead opened rapidly, and both floes drifted 
southeastward, the port floe travelling much faster than the 
other. Some of the provisions were transferred to the other 
floe in boats ; but it soon became impossible to get the boats 
across, and the port floe, with all the provisions on it, was then 
abandoned, and the entire party united on the starboard floe. 
It was early morning of the 24tli before it was safe for the 
boats to attempt to reach the shore. At that time Lieutenant 
Colwell launched a loaded whale-boat, and with a crew of six 
men, four of whom belonged to the ship's crew, started for the 
shore. Captain Pike some time later got off one of his boats, 
and Lieutenant Garlington soon followed with our other whale- 
boat, the ship's crew following soon after with another boat ; 
Lieutenant Colwell's boat was the only one of these four that 
returned to the floe before it was abandoned. When he reached 
the floe there were on it Dr. Harrison and myself, of the ex- 
pedition party, with our dingey loaded, and Captain Pike and 
ten or twelve of his men, with one boat. The captain and 
several of his men soon started for the shore in their only boat, 
and Lieutenant Cohvell took off all the men that were left, leav- 
ing our dingey loaded on the ice. This boat we were to take in 
tow, but the ice looked dangerous, so it was left. When we left 
the floe it was off Cape Sabine, and drifting southeasterly, and 
bearing away on it the greater part of the provisions saved from 
the wreck. We reached Cape Sabine, and found Lieutenant 
Garlington, Captain Pike, and all the others had landed at the 
same point except the fii'st boat-load, by Lieutenant Colwell, 
which was landed about half-wav between Cocked-Hat Island 



320 THE IIAZEI^ COUET-MARTIAL. 

and Cape Sabine, and was never seen by our party again. After 
we had unloaded the boat in wliich I came ashore I observed 
that no further effort was being made by Lieutenant Garlington 
to saye anything more from the floe. I spoke to Moritz about 
going back to tlie floe again^ and he expressed a willingness to 
make another trial. We asked Lieutenant Garlington if we 
could go back, telling him we could get up a party ; but he refus- 
ed;, saying we must not risk it. About this time several of the 
sliip's crew decided to go back to the floe to get provisions and 
clothing, and as they stepped into their boats Moritz and myself 
got in with them. We soon reached the floe, which, with a 
change of tide, was drifting back to the northeastward. Moritz 
and myself got out our dingey, which was already well loaded, 
and made the shore safely. The boat we went over in was 
loaded and reached the shore soon after we did. Another boat 
with a volunteer crew of expedition men and sliip's crew suc- 
ceeded without difficulty in reaching the floe soon after we left 
it, and it also brought a heavy load of provisions ashore. Ellis, 
perhaps, knows better than any one else available what remain- 
ed on the floe afrer this boat left, as he was in it, and was about 
the last man to leave the floe. Thus by the voluntary action of 
tlie men three heavy boat-loads were saved, Lieutenant Garling- 
ton not approving of the risk and positively refusing to let our 
whale-boats go back to tlie floe. If he had made another trip to 
the floe with our party, in our own boats, then the three boats of 
the ship's party would have been available for another trip with 
their own crews, and two or three more boat-loads would have 
been saved. But as it was most of the regular members of our 
party made the last trip in the ship's boats, and when they re- 
turned were too tired to go again, even if Lieutenant Garlington 
had asked them to do so ; but he did not make such a request, 
nor did he endeavor to get a boat party from those men of the 
ship's crew who had not made an extra trip to the ice. They 
could easily have gone, and in my opinion could liave been hired 
to do anything. When the last boat left the floe, about 2.30 
P.M., it was drifting back northwestward, and must have con- 
tinued in that course till liigh tide, about 6 p.m., and hence it 
must have remained in reach of the shore for several hours later. 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 321 

I find the following in my journal of July 24 : 

"Since landing we have been engaged in assorting articles to be used 
by our boats. ... A supply of clothing was issued to each man. Only such 
articles were issued as were absolutely necessary. All the space possible in 
the boats was to be preserved for taking provisions. All extra clothing 
was deposited in a cache in the cliff just above where we landed." 

Again on the 25th : 

" Morning spent by Lieutenant Colwell and several men in fitting sails 
for boats and making prepai-ations for crossing Smith Sound with all the 
provisions possible." 

And later on same day: 

"Captain Pike's crew and our own stored away as much as possible in 
boats, and started across the sound." 

After loading the boats in the manner described in these ex- 
tracts, there was some salt meat left on the shore ; this was put 
in the dingey and taken in tow by one of the boats. All the 
provisions landed by Lieutenant Garlington's party at the camp 
were carried away, nothing being left except a few cans of sour 
berries. 

It was estimated by Lieutenant Garlington that we took 
forty days' rations. I do not know how rations are estimated, 
but it seems to me we had much more than enough to last our 
men forty days ; especially of meat, of which we had fifteen 
pieces of bacon, two large cans of pemmican, about twenty 
pounds each, and a large quantity of canned mutton, turkey, 
chipped beef, and condensed milk, and the greater part of a 
barrel of salt meat, which was taken in the dingey. The bacon 
was fried in profusion, the gravy poured on the fire for fuel, 
and the meat ivasted. One can of the pemmican was opened at 
Cape York and tested, but the men liked the other canned stuff 
better, and no more of it was used. I learned that it was given 
to the Esquimaux at Upernavik. The canned meats, vege- 
tables, etc., were eaten in profusion — in fact, the men gorged 
themselves all the time they were in the camp. The salt meat 
taken in the dingey was never eaten, l)ut used for fuel, as will be 



322 THE IIAZEIN" COUET-MARTIAL. 

seen from accompanying extracts. Lieutenant Garlington car- 
ried his large dog in his boat, mncli to the annoyance of his 
crew. This dog was also fed on the supplies. After such use 
of the supplies, when we reached Cape York, and it was de- 
cided for Lieutenant Colweil to take a boat with a light load 
and cross Melville Bay, a quantity of canned meat, several 
pieces of bacon, and several other things were transferred from 
the large whale-boat to Lieutenant Garlington's boat. The 
supplies remaining in this large whale-boat were amply sufficient 
(except bread which got wet) to last our party to Godhaven, a 
period of thirty-nine days. This shows that there must have 
been much more than forty days' rations in each boat when we 
left Cape Sabine, as each boat started with an equal amount of 
provisions. We also carried away a barrel of alcohol, which con- 
tained about twenty gallons ; this was sometimes used for cook- 
ing, and was frequently tapped by the men. This fact, it 
seems, was not discovered by Lieutenant Garlington until he 
got to TJpernavik, and I was told, to prevent his men from 
getting drunk on it there, he took an axe and knocked the 
head of the barrel out, and poured the alcohol on the rocks. 
There was also a three-gallon demijohn of whiskey saved from 
the wreck. 

The only time I heard one word about preparing for Lieu- 
tenant Greely was just before we left Cape Sabine, when Lieu- 
tenant Garlington made the Proteus^ ci^ezutiun in all the buffalo 
overcoats then in their possession, saying they must be left for 
Lieutenant Greely's party. They were put in a cache, but not 
one mouthful of food was put in with them, and whatever pro- 
visions Lieutenant Greely's party got there were found lying out 
on the rocks as left after our boats were loaded to the danger- 
line. 

I find the following in my notes on the 26th : 

'* . . . Dr. Harrison, steering the dingey, which we still haA'^e in tow, 
loaded with such articles as there is least use for, so that in case we should 
have to abandon it no change of cargo would be necessary. 

" Our two boats made the land just above Life-Boat Cove about mid- 
niglit of the 25th, where we remained until 3.35 p.m. of the 26th, when 
boats started for Pandora Harbor. Passed an immense herd of walrus on 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 323 

the north side of Littleton Island, and saw many lying up on ice-floes, but 
no attempt was made to shoot them. Lieutenant Garling'ton left a record 
at the coal-cache on south side of Littleton Island. We arrived at Pandora 
Harbor at 7.50 p.m., and found Captain Pike's party encamped. While at 
this place Captain Pike said we ought to wait for the Yantic for a week or 
ten days. He thought she would surely come by that time, and Lieutenant 
Colwell proposed to take one boat and go south for the Yantic, and let the 
others wait at this point, where game was plentiful. But both of these 
propositions were rejected, and on the morning of the 28th all the boats 
started south. Had either proposition been adopted our winter station 
could have been established at Littleton Island when the Yantic came a 
week later. We had saved the whale-boats provided for crossing Smith 
Sound, and which proved to be good ones, and could have crossed over to 
Cape Sabine any day with greater safety and less labor than was required 
to cross Melville Bay in a gale such as we experienced." 

I know of no better way to give an account of how tliis re- 
treat was conducted than to quote from my notes made at the 
time at places along the route. 

At one of our encampments I find that I wrote the follow- 
ing : 

"August 1. — Tin-Can Cove is the name by which our present encamp- 
ment is known by the men. Until nearly noon the weather was so bad that 
few left their sheltering places except to open a can of whatever canned 
goods they chose to indulge in and then throw the can into the water. I 
do not like to be critical, but cannot refrain from making a few remarks 
upon our present situation. Our supplies should be so preserved as to pre- 
pare us for the worst; but how do we find it at the present moment? The 
officers are in their tent, ' about one hundred yards from the boats and sup- 
plies, and know nothing of what is going on outside. The men are gorging 
themselves ; whatever they see that they fancy they want. Now while I am 
writing several fellows are going through tlie pile of supplies ; a box of 
raisins is found, and the remark is : ' Off with the bloody lid.' In this 
manner things are going. Cans of condensed milk that might be a comfort 
to the entire party, if used in a pot of tea, are opened and devoured by a 
single individual and the can thrown into the sound. There is no wood 
here with which to make a fire to cook, so the cook is burning pork for 
fuel; even that would not be so bad were not the fire kept burning for hours 
longer than there is any necessity. A barrel of alcohol is here, and cook- 
ing could be done with that, and this meat saved. I am sure all this waste 
would not be allowed were it known by Lieutenant Garlington ; but he does 
not come to see it for himself. . . . The camp is full of complaints, and it 
seems there is nothing to make the present situation pleasant. . . . 



324 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

*' A stew of birds or rabbits would be an appreciated change just now, 
and so long as game is so ple7iUful our supply of provisions would last much 
longer ; but at present the party is devouring everything that it is possible to 
cram into their stomachs or waste upon the rocks. ..." 

Ten days later we have reached Cape York, and I find the 
following remarks in my notes : 

"At 2.30 P.M. boats were hauled upon the shore. . . . Seeing that no 
move was being made to put up a tent, I asked Sergeant Kenny about it. 
He said that there was no place for a tent ; that the stones were all wet, and 
the men were wet; a tent would be of little use; that for himself and one or 
two others they had spread a sail over one of the boats and would stay 
there. There was the fly-sheet lying upon the ground and not in use, so I 
asked some one if he would help me to build a tent to protect us from the 
storm, 'No, I am soaking wet, and a tent will do me no good,' was the re- 
ply. I asked another, and still another, and so on round the party, and re- 
ceived similar replies until I came to McDonald. He was the only man m 
the party who was willing to build a tent ; so he and myself took the tent- 
fly and soon had a comfortable shelter from the snow-storm. The men are 
shivering around as wet as they can be, cursing their situation and the ex- 
pedition, when all of this discomfort might have been easily avoided. There 
is plenty of canvas to make a comfortable shelter for our entire party, but 
no two men will work together. At meal-times it is a grab, hoggish game; 
just so a man fills his own stomach he cares very little whether any one else 
gets anything or not. There are several in the party who between meals, 
or whenever they can, take from the pile of supplies whatever suits their 
fancy. In this manner our limited supply of food is going. I never 
thought that men with souls and reason could act thus. It is all because 
the proper discipline is not exercised and the proper attention not given by 
the commanding officer. . . . There are some men in the party who would 
do better were others acting differently ; but while things are going they 
think each should have a share, and so the matter is made worse by him 
whose duty it is to stop this practice." 

" August 11. — McDonald and I kept warm, and were sheltered from 
the cold rain, . . . but these men who refused to build a tent were in a 
lamentable condition, wet and chilled to the bone. Still no effort was 
made to fix a shelter. A cold rain fell during the entire day, and most of 
the men were hovering around a small fire of seal-blubber in a miserable 
state. At 7 p.m. it was still raining, and there was every prospect of as bad 
a night as the last. The men were all shivering around a small fire of 
whale-blubber, still as wet as they were twenty-six hours before, and with 
no prospect of a better state of things. I went and talked to them, and 
tried to show the folly of staying out in the weather, and again proposed to 



THE IIAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 325 

help to build a tent for all. After a 'growl,' in which nearly all partici- 
pated, a move was at last made. A phice was selected, . . . and in a short 
time we had a tent large enough for all, and a good protection from the 
weatiier. This could have been do7iejust as well over twenty-four hours he- 
fore, and all been comfortable; but as it is they are so wet and chilled that it 
will take hours before they can be comfortable. If there is the least ob- 
stacle in the way of making the party comfortable at the next camp, I 
should not be surprised at a repetition of this experience." 

Tliere are other incidents that might be related, but as this 
report is sufficiently full to convey a general idea of the conduct 
of the expedition, it is respectfully submitted without further 
recital. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

W. H. Lamar, Jr., 

8gt. Sig. Corps, U. S. A. 



326 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 



STATEMENT OF FEANK W. ELLIS, SERGEANT 
SIGNAL CORPS. 

Washington", D. C, January 27, 1885. 

General W. B. Hazen, 

Chief Signal Officer, U, 8. A. : 

Sir : In accordance with your request I have the honor to 
submit the following report ujoon the Lady Franklin Bay Relief 
Expedition of 1883, of which I was a member : 

In New York, on board the Yantic, on June 13, learning 
that the vessel was to sail that day, Sergeant Lamar and myself 
went to Lieutenant Garlington and asked him what should be 
done in regard to the comparison of barometers we were in- 
structed to make while in New York. In an angry manner ho 
told us to do nothing until we were ordered. Sergeant Lamar 
told him that we had received very explicit instructions in re- 
gard to the barometer comparisons. 

Lieutenant Garlington replied: " That reminds me old Abbe 
and among them went and got up a lot of d — d instructions, 
and I have not read them." He then went into the cabin and 
immediately brought out a copy of the instructions given him 
in regard to the work of the Signal Corps men on the expedi- 
tion, and gave it to Lamar, telling him to be careful with it, as 
it was the only copy he had. After reac'hiug St. John's, N. F., 
he said nothing to us in regard to the work we were instructed 
to perform, but set us to work with the other men shifting the 
cargo of the vessel. 

Lamar and myself agreed to lay the matter before him 
again. We told him that we had been given no opportunity 
to carry out the instructions given us; that we wanted a room 
in the cabin, where we could mount the barometer and keep the 
instruments, and that we wanted a place to do the work expected 



THE HAZEN COUllT-MAliTIAL. 327 

of us. Hebeciimc very angry, and told us that our duty would 
be the same as that of the regular Army party; that no distinc- 
tion would be made between us. I gave him the copy of in- 
structions. He ordered us back to work shifting the cargo. 
He was busy, and gave the instructions back to me, telling me 
to hand them to him some other time, as he could not read 
them then. He never called for that copy again, and it sank 
with the vessel. 

In Godhaven there was a difference of opinion between 
Lieutenant Garlington and Captain Pike about starting north- 
ward. 

Lieutenant Garlington wanted to start, and Captain Pike 
held that the weather was not favorable ; that there was no 
hurry, as we were at least two tveeks too early. Tl>e Proteus 
was run aground about forty miles from Godhaven. There was 
a light fog at the time. In answer to inquiries made by the 
mate the Esquimau Nicholas replied, "Plenty water." One 
day the vessel stopped near the land in Melville Bay, and it was 
found that she was out of her course. Lieutenant Garlington 
expressed the opinion that Captain Pike was no navigator, and 
did not know what he was about. 

The Proteus arrived at Pandora Harbor early on the morn- 
ing of July 22. A party went ashore to look for the record left 
there by Beebe the year before. It was not found. The vessel 
steamed to Littleton Island and slowly passed it. No one land- 
ed. At Littleton Island no ice could be seen by the mate from 
the crow's nest. Within three hours the vessel encountered an 
almost solid ice-floe, from six to eight feet thick, and of hard 
ice. It was impassable. The mate reported that no water could 
be seen to the northward. The vessel then steamed to the west- 
ward, keeping very near the ice; but no lead through the floe 
was found, and anchor was dropped in Payer Harbor. Before 
the ship was brought to anchor Lieutenant Garlington and par- 
ty started out to find the cache on Cape Sabine. Lamar and 
myself, with instruments, Avere landed on an island to com- 
mence magnetic observations. The instruments were carried 
to the top of the island, and observations fairly commenced, 
Avhen Lieutenant Garlington was seen coming back in the 



328 THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 

boat. He signalled to us to return to tlie ship at once. It 
was late in the afternoon of July 22 when the vessel was 
put into the ice. Captain Pike said that he did not believe 
that there was any open water ahead ; that it was not water 
that Lieutenant Garlington had seen. Lieutenant Colwell was 
with the mate in the crow's nest directing the movements of 
the vessel in the ice. 

There was no open lane of water, and the Proteus had to 
ram her way. When it was impossible to break through one 
route another was tried, until at last she was caught and unable 
to move. 

While in the pinch, about 2 a.m., July 23, on deck, Oajotain 
Pike, daring a conversation with me, said that when he went 
into Payer Harbor he fully intended to stay there three or four 
days, or until the ice had passed out of the sound; that it was 
against his wishes the vessel was put into the ice; that Garling- 
ton ordered him on to the ice, telling him that he (Garlington) 
would not consider him (Pike) as performing his duty to the 
United States Government or to the peoj)le at Lady Franklin 
Bay; that if it was to do over again he would give Garlington 
to understand who was in command of the ship; that he wished 
lie was back in Payer Harbor again. 

At 7 A.M. I went to sleep, and about 3 p.m. was awakened 
by Lamar, who told me the vessel was in a nip, and they 
were preparing to throw things overboard. Having put my 
gun and ammunition on to the ice, I was ordered into the hold, 
where men were at work throwing boxes on deck. When they 
began to throw things overboard there was a good deal of ex- 
citement. Oar party in the fore part of the vessel worked 
very hard. When the sides of the ship began to mash Lieuten- 
ant Garlington got off on the ice and did not come aboard 
again. A great many provisions went down between the ice 
and the ship's side. Some men were on the ice carrying things 
to safer places. Lieutenant Garlington was giving orders to 
these men in a very wild manner. He ordered me on the ice. 
While I was on one side of the ship he ordered me on to the 
other. He then ordered me to roll a barrel away, but before 
this could be done he ordered me to take a box. He was very 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 329 

much excited. All the boats had been gotten off but one when 
the cry came, '^She is sinking/' and every one left the ship. 
But she did not sink, and Lieutenant Colwell and a few more 
returned to save the boat. He ordered Lieutenant Colwell 
three times, in a very peremptory manner, *^ To hell with the 
boats; save the provisions." Tlie boat was saved, and more 
boxes were thrown overboard. When Lamar asked him to be 
allowed to save some of the instruments in the cabin he re- 
plied : " To hell with the instruments." On the vessel the ex- 
pedition party worked in the fore part of the vessel, while the 
Proteus men worked in the cabin store-room. Every one seemed 
to be at work, though the men of our party may have worked 
harder than the otliers. When the vessel had sunk, and the ice 
had begun to separate, there were two pans of ice holding pro- 
visions which had been thrown from both sides of the ship. 
Those pans began to move away from each other, and the work 
of moving the provisions all to one pan was commenced. This 
was done by drawing the boats loaded through the slush-ice be- 
tween the two pans. Several loads were made when the rope 
would no longer reach from one pan to the other. Then every 
one deserted the pan which was on the port side of the vessel. 
When the water had cleared sufficiently to admit of rowing 
private Mnrphy and myself crossed in a small boat to save some 
more of the provisions. We had reached the provisions, and had 
just begun to load, when Lieutenant Garlington ordered me sev- 
eral times to return, and we came back bringing nothing, when 
it would have been just as easy for us to have brought the boat 
loaded. There was no reason for having us return, as no one 
was doing any work at that time. All the provisions on the 
port floe could have been easily transferred to the other, and 
would have been done had he allowed it. On that deserted pan 
were about six boxes of bacon, perhaps three hundred pounds 
of bread, and some canned goods. Every one rested for three 
or four hours. Early on the morning of July 24 the boats were 
loaded with provisions and clothing to be taken to Cape Sabine. 
Lieutenant Colwell, with the large whale-boat and a crew part- 
ly of our own men and partly of men from the Proteus^ crew, 
made the first trip to land. This load was placed on the coast 



330 THE HAZET^ COURT-MAETIAL. 

more to the northward than any boat, afterwards landed, and 
was not seen again. [These were the stores left for Lieutenant 
G-reely.] A short time afterwards Captain Pike ventured out, 
soon followed by Lieutenant Garlington in the other whale-boat. 
I was in this boat. On the way across it was found that the 
plug was out of the bottom of the boat, and that it was a third 
full of water. Lieutenant G-aiiington was greatly excited, and 
asked three times in about a minute if the water was gaining, 
receiving an answer each time. The plug being put in and the 
water bailed out, the boat reached the land near where Pike's 
men had landed. I was left on the rock with the load, and the 
boat started to return to the ice. I was ordered to shoot any of 
Pike's men if they should come and try to take anything. I 
was asked if my gun was loaded, and replied that it was. In a 
short time Lieutenant Garlington returned, having given up the 
return trip. Although I was not in the boat, I believe the boat 
could have returned to the ice witli little trouble, for we met no 
ice coming to the land that would hinder rowing a loaded boat, 
and, moreover, other boats, only a short time afterwards, did 
return to the ice. The men in the boat were rather disgusted 
at having to return without anything, and so expressed them- 
selves to one another. Presently more of Pike's boats, and 
finally Lieutenant Oolwell's boat, which had returned to the 
ice and brought off the men from it, returned to Cape Sabine. 
At this time Lieutenant Garlington seemed to have given up all 
thought of trying to save any more of the provisions on the ice. 
He refused to let a party of his own men who volunteered go 
back to the ice, telling them they must not risk it. But Tay- 
lor, second mate of the Proteus, with a crew of his own men, 
started back to the ice, and Lamar and Moritz got in the boat 
with them. Murphy, Kenney, White, and myself took the 
punt (Pike's smallest boat) and started out. Lieutenant Gar- 
lington did not approve of this. His instructions to the men 
in the punt were for them to turn back if they should meet with 
danger, and to run no risks whatever. He cooled the enthu- 
siasm of the men. The punt was the last boat to leave the rocks 
of Cape Sabine. When we encountered ice Kenney repeated 
Lieutenant Garlington's orders about turning back ; but Mur- 



THE IIAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 331 

pliy replied, *' We have gone too far now to turn back/' and 
the ice-pan was reached by dragging the boat over the intcrven- 
ino- ice. It could not have been more than five miles from the 
ice-pan to Cape Sabine, for the pnnt, heavily loaded, was less than 
an hour in traversing the distance. Other points of land were 
nearer the ice-pan at that time than Cape Sabine. Clear wea- 
ther continued for eight or ten hours after the provisions were 
abandoned, and I believe that everytlii7ig could have been landed 
at different points along the coast as the ice drifted. As it was, 
two heavy boat-loads of provisions were saved without Lieuten- 
ant Garlington's concurrence — one of them in disregard of his 
instructions, while Lamar and Moritz brought back the dingey. 
Those men who did not work voluntarily would have worked 
willingly under orders. The men were not perfectly exhausted, 
as stated. There was left on the ice as much provisions as had 
been taken to land. There was a quantity of bacon and canned 
stuff. Had it not been for this voluntary action of the men in 
saving provisions, when the party came to leave Cape Sabine 
the first whale-boat landed by Lieutenant Colwell would cer- 
tainly have been visited, and nothing eatable would have been 
left for Lieutenant Greely. Lieutenant G-arlington did not 
seem to have a thought of leaving provisions for Lieutenant 
Greely. He did make some of the Proteus^ men give np the 
buffalo overcoats which were left. The party remained on Cape 
Sabine the 24th and 25th. Every one was allowed to eat as 
much as he wished. When preparing to leave Cape Sabine the 
boats were loaded as heavily as they dared to load them. All 
the provisions landed at that place Avere crowded in. The sup- 
ply of clothing allowed the men was limited so as to give more 
room for provisions. All that I remember to have been left 
was less than half a barrel of salt beef which had been broken 
open and part of the contents thrown into the bottom of 
the dingey. 

Our party had three repeating-rifles and a shot-gun, in addi- 
tion to a rifle or shot-gun to nearly every man of the Proteus^ 
crew. One repeating-rifle belonged to Moritz, one to Lieuten- 
ant Colwell, and one belonging to myself. The shot-gun be- 
longed to Lieutenant Colwell. For Moritz' and ColwelFs guns 



332 THE HAZE]^ COUET-MAETIAL. 

there was one box containing two thousand rounds and one 
box containing fifteen hundred rounds of ammunition. For 
my gun there were two hundred and fifty cartridges, two 
hundred bullets, three pints of powder, and fifteen hundred 
primers, with a set of reloading tolos complete. There was 
a large Colt's revolver, with one hundred rounds of ammu- 
nition, and a box containing two thousand cartridges for a 
forty-four calibre Winchester, intended for some one in the 
Greely party. 

The party left Cape Sabine about 4 p.m. July 25 with a stiff 
breeze. There was very little ice to be seen in Smith's Sound. 
On the way across Murphy, who was steering and sailing the 
boat, said that she was loaded too heavily, and Lieutenant Gar- 
lington suggested that some things be thrown overboard, to 
which there was no reply, and nothing was thrown overboard. 
The east side of the sound was reached about midnight, and 
Garlington's boat was unloaded. 

In loading it again there was trouble in getting everything 
in, and Lieutenant Garlington made the remark, ^' Oh ! my, 
I'm afraid we will have to leave some of the canned stuff." 
Here Murphy suggested that the wafers were the best thing to 
leave, as the five or six boxes containing them took up a great 
deal of room, and remarked that there was more nourishment 
in one can of condensed milk than there was in all the wafers. 
Lieutenant Garlington replied that he did not want to leave the 
wafers. ^^ It is the only kind of bread I eat." Nothing was 
left excepting the box of forty-four calibre cartridges. On the 
afternoon of the 26th the boats were rowed to Littleton Island. 
We passed between the main-land and the island. The sun 
was shining brightly after the snow of the night before. Great 
numbers of walrus were seen on the rocks near the water and 
swimming in the water of Life-Boat Cove. 

It was said at the time that there must have been five hun- 
dred of them on the island. We saiv numbers of walrus on 
small pieces of ice south of Littleton Island. They were very 
tame. We passed in the boats within twenty yards of a small 
ice-pan with eight large walrus on it. 

No one from our boat landed on Littleton Island but Lieu- 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 333 

tenant Garlington and Kenne}^ They left a record in a bottle 
in tlie coal-lieap, returning immediately to the boat. The cache 
supposed to be there was not seen by any one, and no attempt 
was made to find it. 

We reached Pandora Harbor, where we fonnd Pike's men, 
who had landed there the night before. Tlie boats were un- 
loaded and moored out. Lieutenant Garlington's tent was 
pitched. The men ate three meals a day, and had plenty to eat 
each time. It was the opinion among the men that the party 
would remain here and await the arrival of the Yantic. This 
was the intention of Captain Pike and his men. There was a 
little surjorise when it was ordered that the boats be in readi- 
ness for starting. The first landing was made a little to the 
south of Cape Chalon, the next at Northumberland Island, and 
then near Cape Parry. Each time the tent was unpacked and 
pitched for Lieutenant Garlington. At Cape Parry we stayed 
two days on account of bad w^eather. Here provisions were 
wasted. The grease from the frying bacon was poured on the 
fire to make it burn, and now and then a slice of the bacon 
itself was burned. Some of the salt beef was used for fuel. 
Cans of condensed milk, cans of turkey (two-pound cans), and 
cans of dried beef were opened and contents eaten. Two or three 
of the men made gluttons of themselves. One man more con- 
spicuous than the rest would eat till he could eat no more, and 
as soon as he was able to eat again he would do so. I saw him 
open a can of turkey, eat as much as he could, and throw the 
rest away. Lieutenant Garlington stayed in his tent nearly all 
the time we were at Cape Parry, or Tin-Can Cove, as the men 
called the camp. Kenneyand Murphy drew some alcohol from 
the barrel. 

The next landing-place was Saunders Island, where we stop- 
ped two days. A great many birds were killed. Some of these 
birds were carried away with us ; some of them spoiled, and 
were thrown away. On the afternoon of August 7 we came to 
Conical Eock. Here the tide was causing the ice-pans to whirl 
round, and they would come together and separate, making it 
very dangerous for the boats. Garlington called to Colwell : 
*' I say, Colwell, what do you think of this ?" Colwell : ''I 



334 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

think it is a pretty bad place." Garlington : " Let's get out of 
it ?" Colwell : **I don't see how jo\i are going to get out. I 
guess we will haye to haul up on the ice." Here Garlington 
complained of being suddenly very sick, and asked to be put out 
on the ice. The boats were pulled up on the ice. The tent was 
taken out for him to lie upon. When the ice opened up again 
the boats were put into the water, and we reached Conical 
Eock. Garlington climbed on top with a telescope to look 
ahead. Then going ahead, the ice soon became as bad as before. 
Again he complained of being sick. Landed eight or nine miles 
to the northward of Cape York at 9 p.m., August 7. Next 
morning Lieutenant Colwell, with some of his men and some of 
Pike's men, in Pike's boat, the '*punt," pushed ahead to Cape 
York to find the Esquimaux there, and make inquiries about 
the Sophia, which it was supposed would be there. Lieutenant 
Garlington had placed great hopes on finding the Sophia here. 
He remarked on the way in the boat that he expected to find 
this vessel before he did the Yantic, The Esquimaux knew 
nothing about the vessel, but said there was another lot of 
Esquimaux around the cape. The boats rounded the cape and 
found only one family of these people. They knew nothing. 
We landed there and stayed for two or three days. Kenney got 
so drunk on the alcohol that he was very sick. Here it was de- 
cided that Colwell should push ahead for Upernavik. On 
August 12 we returned to where we saw the first Esquimaux, 
and remained there till the 16th. During that time there was 
no watch kept over the provisions, and more cans were opened. 
Bacon and salt beef were burned on the fire. 

On August 19 we landed on an unknown island. Some one 
,got out a quantity of alcohol. On the 20th we landed again for 
rest and for something to eat. 

Murphy, who was steering the boat, got so drunk that when 
we started again he fell overboard. We got into very heavy, 
angular ice among large icebergs, and Lieutenant Garlington 
kept wanting to turn back and get out from among them; but 
Captain Pike kept on. Then he said we would turn back any 
Way. We were then about ten miles from land ; but he kept 
.trying to get Captain Pike to turn back, all the time following 



THE IIAZEIvr COURT-MARTIAL. 335 

in the track of liis boats. When the icebergs began to grow 
fewer, and it was easier to row, he quit saying anything about 
turning back. 

When we reached Upernavik there was left of provisions 
about one-fourth of what we had on leaving Cape Sabine. 
There were about one hundred pounds of bacon, a number of 
cans of mutton and turkey, and some alcohol. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

Fraitk ^Y. Ellis, 

^erg. Sig. Corps, U, S. A. 



336 THE HAZE]^ COUKT-MAETIAL. 



LIEUTENANT GEEELY'S mSTRUCTIONS. 

Wae Department, 
Office of the Chief Signal Officer, 

Washington, D. C, June 17, 1881. 

The following general instructions will govern in the estab- 
lishment and management of the expedition organized under 
Special Orders No. 97, War Department, office of the Chief 
Signal Officer, Washington, D. C, dated June 17, 1881. 

The permanent station will be established at the most suita- 
ble point north of the eighty-first parallel and contiguous to the 
coal-seam discovered near Lady Eranklin Bay by the English 
expedition of 1875. 

After leaving St. John's, Newfoundland, except to obtain Es- 
quimaux, hunters, dogs, clothing, etc., at Disco or Upernavik, 
only such stops will be made as the condition of the ice necessi- 
tates, or as are essential in order to determine the exact lo- 
cation and condition of the stores cached on the east coast of 
Grinnell Land by the English expedition of 1875. During any 
enforced delays along that coast it would be well to supplement 
the English depots by such small caches from the steamer's 
stores of provisions as would be valuable to a party retreating 
southward by boats from Robeson's Channel. At each point 
where an old depot is examined or a new one established three 
brief notices Avill be left of the visit — one to be established in 
the cairn built or found standing, one to be placed on the north 
side of it, and one to be buried twenty feet north (magnetic) of 
the cairn. Notices discovered in cairns will be brought away, 
replacing them, however, by copies. 

The steamer should, on arrival at iiermanent station, dis- 
charge her cargo with the utmost dispatch, and be ordered to 
return to St. John's, N. F., after a careful examination of the 
seam of coal at that point has been made by the party to deter- 



THE HAZEIS^ COURT-MARTIAL. 337 

mine whether an ample snp[)ly is easily procurable. A report 
in writing on this subject will be sent by the returning vessel. 
In case of doubt an ample supply must be retained from the 
steamer's stores. 

By the returning steamer will be sent a brief report of pro- 
ceedings and as full a transcript as possible of all meteorological 
and other observations made during the voyage. 

After the departure of the vessel the energies of the party 
should first be devoted to the erection of the dwelling-house 
and observatories, after which a sledge-party will be sent, ac- 
cording to the proposal made to the Navy Department, to the 
high land near Cape Joseph Henry. 

The sledge-parties will generally work in the interests of ex- 
ploration and discovery. The work to be done by them should 
be marked by all possible care and fidelity. The outlines of 
coasts entered on charts will be such only as have actually been 
seen by the party. Every favorable oj)portunity will be im- 
proved by the sledging-parties to determine accurately the geo- 
graphical positions of all their camps, and to obtain the bearing 
therefrom of all distant cliffs, mountains, islands, etc. 

Careful attention will be given to the collection of specimens 
of animal, mineral, and vegetable kingdoms. Such collections 
will be made as complete as possible; will be considered the 
property of the Government of the United States, and are to be 
at its disposal. 

Special instructions regarding the meteorological, magnetic, 
tidal, pendulum, and other observations, as recommended by 
the Hamburg International Polar Conference, are transmitted 
herewith. 

It is contemplated that the permanent station shall be visit- 
ed in 1882 and 1883 by a steam-sealer or other vessel, by which 
supplies for and such additions to the present party as are 
deemed needful will be sent. 

In case such vessel is unable to reach Lady Franklin Bay in 
1882 she will cache a portion of her supplies and all of her let- 
ters and dispatches at the most northerly point she attains on 
the east coast of Grinnell Land, and establish a small depot of 
supplies at Littleton Island. Notices of the locality of such de- 



338 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

IDots will be left at one or all of the following places — viz., Cape 
Hawks, Cape Sabine, and Cape Isabella. 

In case no vessel reaches the permanent station in 1882 the 
vessel sent in 1883 will remain in Smith's Sound till there is 
danger of its closing by ice, and, on leaving, wdll land all her 
supplies and party at Littleton Island, which party will be pre- 
pared for a winter's stay, and will be instructed to send sledge- 
parties up the east side of Grmnell Land to meet this party. If 
not visited in 1882, Lieutenant Greely will abandon his station 
not later than September 1, 1883, and will retreat southward by 
boat, following closely the east coast of Grinnell Land, until 
the relieving vessel is met or Littleton Island is reached. 

A special copy of all reports will be made each day, which 
will be sent home each year by the returning vessel. 

The full narrative of the several branches will be prepared 
with accuracy, leaving the least possible amount of work after- 
wards to prepare them for publication. 

The greatest caution will be taken at the station against fire, 
and daily inspections made of every spot where fire can commu- 
nicate. 

In case of any fatal accident or permanent disability ha]3- 
pening to Lieutenant Greely the command will devolve on the 
officer next in seniority, who will be governed by these instruc- 
tions. 

W. B. HAZEi^, 

Brigadier and Brevet Major-General, 

Chief Signal Officer, U. S. A. 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 339 



LIEUTENANT GREELY'S PLAN OF RELIEF EXPEDI- 
TION ADOPTED BY GENERAL HAZEN, AND FUR- 
NISHED LIEUTENANT GARLINGTON FOR HIS 
GUIDANCE. 

FOET COI^GER, GElKiiTELL LA]!TD, 

August 17, 1881. 
Chief Signal Officer of the Army : 

Sir : I have the honor to recommend that, in connection 
with the vessel to visit the station in 1882, there be sent some 
captain of the merchant service, who has had experience as a 
whaler and ice- master. Five enlisted men of the Army are re- 
quested to replace men invalided, or who are found to be unfit 
otherwise for the work. One of the number should be Signal 
Service Sergeant. Sergeant Emory Braine, Second Cavalry, and 
Sergeant Martin Hamburg, Company E, Tenth Infantry, are 
recommended most highly, and without they are physically or 
morally unfitted within the year their detail is requested. The 
two remaining men should be such as have had some sea experi- 
ence. All the men should be rigidly examined as to their physi- 
cal condition. The ice-master should be expected to see that 
every effort is made to reach this point by the yessel sent. In 
case the vessel cannot reach this jooint — a very possible con- 
tingency — a depot (No. A) should be made at a permanent point 
on the east coast of Grinnell Land (west side of Smith Sound 
or Kennedy Channel), consisting of ninety-six cans chocolate 
and milk, ninety-six cans coffee and milk, one-half barrel of al- 
cohol, forty-eight mutton, forty-eight beef, one keg rum, forty- 
eight cans sausage, forty-eight cans mulberry preserves, two 
barrels bread, one box butter, forty-eight cans condensed milk, 
one-half barrel onion-pickles, forty-eight cans cranberry-sauce, 
forty-eight cans soup, twenty-four cans tomatoes, one gross wax 
matches (to be in water-tight case), one-eighth cord of wood, one 
wall tent (complete), one axe and helve, one whale-boat. At 



340 THE HAZEN" COURT-MAETIAL. 

Littleton Island, carefully cached on the western point, out of 
ordinary sight, with no cairn, sliould be placed an equal amount 
(Depot B), but no boat. A notice as to the exact locality should 
be left in the top of the coal (preferably in a corked and sealed 
bottle), buried a foot deep, which was left on that island. A 
second notice should be in the edge of the coal furthest inland, 
and a third in the iSTares cairn, now 02Den, which is on summit 
southwest part of island. 

The second boat should be left at Cape Prescott, or very near, 
in order that, if boats are necessarily abandoned above that 
point, one will be available to cross to Baclie Island and go to the 
southward. These boats should be not exceeding forty feet, and 
not less than twenty above high-water mark, and their positions 
should be marked by substantial scantling, well secured and 
braced, to the top of Avhich a number of pieces of canvas should 
be well nailed, so that it may be plainly and easily seen. A 
second staff, with pieces of canvas, should be raised on a point 
which shows prominently to the northward, so a party can see 
it a long distance. Depots A and B should be made ready in 
St. John's, and be plainly marked and carefully secured. 

The packages during the voyage should be easily accessible. 
Depot A should be landed at the farthest possible northern 
point. A few miles is important, and no southing should be 
permitted to obtain a prominent location. The letters and dis- 
patches should all be carefully soldered up in a tin case, and 
then boxed (at St. John's) and marked, or put in a well-strapped, 
water-tight keg, and should be left with Depot A, if such depot 
shall be at, or north, or in plain sight of Cape Hawks, and the 
newspapers and periodicals left at Littleton Island. If Depot A 
is not so far north the letters and all mail should be returned to 
the United States. After making Depot B at Littleton Island, 
the vessel should, if possible, leave a record of its proceedings at 
Cape Sabine. If the party does not reach here in 1882, there 
should be sent in 1883 a capable, energetic officer, with ten (10) 
men, eight of whom should have had practical sea experience, 
provided with three whale-boats and ample provisions for fortj 
(40) persons for fifteen months. The list of all provisions taken 
by me this year would answer exceedingly well. In case the 



THE IIAZE]S" COURT-MAKTIAL. 341 

vessel was obliged to turn southward (she should not leave Smith 
Sound, near Cape Sabine, before September 15) it should leave 
duplicates of depots A and B of 1882 at two different points, 
one of which sliould be between Cape Sabine and Bache Island, 
the other to be an intermediate depot between two depots al- 
ready established. Similar rules as to indicating localities should 
be insisted on. Thus the Grinnell Land coast would be covered 
with seven depots of ten days' provisions in less than three hun- 
dred miles, not including the two months' supplies at Cape 
Hawks. 

The party should then proceed to establish a winter station 
at Polaris^ winter quarters, Life-Boat Cove, where their main 
duty would be to keep their telescopes on Cape Sabine and the 
land to the northward. They should have lumber enough, for 
house and observatory, fifty tons of coal, and complete meteoro- 
logical magnetic outfit. Being furnished with dogs, sledges, 
and a native driver, a party of at least six (6) men should pro- 
ceed, when practicable, to Cape Sabine, whence a sledge-party 
northward of two best-fitted men -should reach Cape Hawks, if 
not Cape Collinson. Such action, from advice, experience, and 
observation, seems to me all that can be done to insure our 
safety. No deviation from these instructions should be per- 
mitted. Latitude of action should not be given to a relief 
party who on a known coast are searching for men who know 
their plans and orders. 

I am, very respectfully, yours, 

A. W. Gkeely, 

First Lieut. Fifth Cavalry, A, 8, 0., and AssH^ 
Commanding FxpedUio7i. 



342 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 



EROM GBNEEAL HAZEN IK Al^^SWEE TO COM 
MANDER WILDES. 

Washikgtok, D. 0., Dec. 19, 1884. 
The Honorable the Secretary of War: 

Sir : I beg to briefly review several misstatements of facts 
and errors of deduction which, appear in the recent letter of 
Commander Wildes to the Secretary of the Navy, which has 
had a wide publication, and unless noticed may mislead. That 
letter had the double purpose of exculpation of himself and de- 
traction of me, and I shall notice his several statements in their 
order : 

Eirst — I cannot at present speak of the Court of Inquiry. 

Second — Commander Wildes denies that his ship was pro- 
perly equipped for the service to which he was assigned, and 
states that she was not a "complete Arctic ship." It was 
ordered by the Navy Department to be properly equipped for 
Arctic service. Her " battery was taken off, all her ordnance 
stores were landed, and she was sheathed from her bow to a 
little abaft of foremast with oak planking spiked on the out- 
side of her copper." Her sheathing was from "three to six 
inches in thickness." The special service to which she was as- 
signed was to accompany the steam-sealer Proteus through 
Davis Straits and Melville Bay to Littleton Island as the reserve 
ship. By test she perfectly met every requirement of that ser- 
vice, the failure being only in her commander. She made the 
passage from Upernavik, through the ice of Melville Bay, to 
Littleton Island, a distance of about six hundred miles, in less 
than three days, making between those points the quickest time 
on record. He was ordered by his own immediate commander. 
Rear- Admiral Cooper, "to prepare the Yantic for the above- 
mentioned service," the order containing this admonition : "In 
making your preparations you will bear in mind that your 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 343 

vessel may be absent a long time from por.t and depots of sup- 
plies, and may encounter severe and stormy weather and ice." 

Third — Commander Wildes admits that when the Proteus 
was wrecked her designated reserve ship, the Yantic, which 
was ordered *' to accompany" her, was distant more than one 
thousand miles, and attempts to excuse it. But he fails to state 
that he voluntarily separated from the Proteus by agreement 
with Lieutenant Garlington, in violation of both the letter and 
spirit of their orders, before the necessity for separation arose. 
It is a sound maxim that *^ no man shall stand excused by his 
own wrong." If Commander Wildes sailed from the Navy 
Yard at New York before the repairs on his ship's boilers were 
completed, he violated the orders of the Navy Department, 
which required that he should sail only '* when in all respects 
in readiness for sea." He cannot excuse his neglect to land any 
of his stores at Littleton Island by the statement that '' the 
limited quantity of provisions on board," and the expectancy of 
adding thirty-seven more men to his crew of one hundred and 
forty-six, and *' the difficulties and disasters that thoroughly- 
equipped Arctic ships had experienced in these same waters "; 
for he did, in fact, add that number to his crew a few days later, 
transport them to St. John's, and yet had sufficient provisions 
on hand when he returned to New York to have supplied the 
combined parties of Greely and Garlington with full rations for 
ten months. 

Fourth — His failure to return from Upernavik to Life-Boat 
Cove with Garlington, and there establish the winter quarters 
for the succor of Greely and his men, Commander Wildes at- 
tempts to explain by an equally 'Hame and impotent con- 
clusion." The navigable season in Melville Bay was not 
about closing, as he states, on the '' 2d of September." It is a 
well-known fact, and there is no authority to the contrary, that 
Melville Bay is always navigable throughout the entire month 
of September, which he knew and reported. The United States 
steamship Juniata, a third-rate like the Yantic, and with simi- 
lar sheathing, sailed in 1873 from St. John's as late as Septem- 
ber 18, under the orders of the Secretary of the Navy, to renew 
her search for the Polaris and her crew by cruising to the 



344 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

norfcliward through Melville Bay, and her enterprising cap- 
tain would have certainly attempted this passage had he not 
learned of the rescue of the Polaris party. 

Commander Wildes was bound by his sacred duty to attempt 
the passage, or at least to ascertain by actual trial whether it 
was impracticable or not, and the trial would have been a suc- 
cess. He held in his hands the balances of life and death for 
Greely and his men, and solved it against them, his only pur- 
pose there being their rescue. Sir Allen Young, whom he cites 
to show that an attempt to cross Melville Bay in Seiotember 
would have been extremely hazardous, does not support his 
view. That navigator passed through the main pack, or middle 
passage, in the Pandora in 1875 as late as September 23. He 
was beset in the main pack for five days in July, the wind blow- 
ing southeast true, as he did not in his strong ship deem it ne- 
cessary to diverge from the direct course and seek a safer route. 
If northerly winds had set in on September 2, as Commander 
Wildes stated, then, as experience has shown, the route by the 
westerly Ca-ry Islands was open and practicable, if indeed it has 
ever closed. The sealers and whalers pass Upernavik, going 
northward by that route, as early as the 1st of May. Careful 
investigation has led me to believe it very probable that Mel- 
ville Bay was navigable during the entire winter of 1883, as was 
the lower portion of Smith Sound. 

Fifth — The plan of relief had been agreed upon by myself 
and Greely, the latter having formulated it in all its details, after 
his arrival at Lady Franklin Bay, and he earnestly besought 
that no deviation be permitted. He was familiar with the 
whole problem, and was more vitally interested in the success of 
the rescue than any other man possibly could have been, and 
the plan failed only because those sent to execute it violated 
their orders for its enforcement. Such a prearranged plan for 
the rescue by a co-operating party is the most sacred compact 
that man can make, and only its literal observance can be 
justified. Such is the testimony of the heroic commander 
of that Arctic expedition which bore the flag of our country 
farther to the north than the ensign of any other nation has 
ever waved. 



THE HAZElSr COURT-MAETIAL. 345 

His words on this point, written at Cape Sabine, have all 
the authoritative sanction that attaches to the declarations of the 
dying, and he is the best possible witness, because he was in a 
situation that best qualified him to judge. I was without autho- 
rity to change the plan after it became impossible to so inform the 
officer Avith whom it had been concerted. I did supplement it 
in the direction of greater safety by securing a reserve ship, but 
the action of her commander rendered that provident measure 
of no avail. 

Sixth — It is true, as stated by Commander A¥ildes, that no 
amount of provisions left on Littleton Island could have been 
of any service to Greely. But had the winter station been es- 
tablished there, as required by the plan of relief, the party there 
stationed could have crossed over to Cape Sabine and rescued 
Greely and his men. 

There will probably never be seen such a spectacle again, of 
men sent by a generous government to rescue brave Arctic ex- 
plorers, who, when on the spot and in midsummer, possess every 
facility for its accomplishment, bear away, without any attempt 
at rescue, into regions of sunshine and plenty the very succor 
which they were sent to extend, regardless of the fact that hu- 
man lives were trembling in the balance, and leaving the very 
men whom they were sent to save without food and shelter to 
meet and endure the cold, darkness, and starvation of an Arctic 
winter. Commander Wildes states, as a reason for his hasty 
return without establishing a winter station at Littleton Island, 
that his men had no clothing adapted to an Arctic climate, and 
not even " matches enough to start a fire with." No comment 
is necessary here. He had been ordered to make ^'preparations " 
for a cruise to the west coast of Greenland into Arctic seas, 
and he had full power to make requisition for, and secure, all 
supplies needed for that special service ; and yet he started on 
this voyage with a '^ tropical" outfit. He did not even provide 
boats enough to save his crew in case of a wreck, and carried a 
crew of one hundred and forty-six, taking on board a fresh draft 
of additional men on the very day he sailed, when fifty would 
have been sufficient, as he testified, if he had provided his ship 
with patent blocks and some additions to her apparatus. 



346 THE HAZEN" COURT-MARTIAL. 

Seventh — Commander Wildes seeks to impeach my adminis- 
trative capacity as Chief Signal Officer of the Army hy imputing 
a want of nautical knowledge, and cites my question to a "witness 
as to the supposed custom of the sealers ^' to feel their way along 
with the bottom of the boat, rather than to sound, as is usual 
in our marine service." The rocks along the coast of Labrador 
and beyond are worn smooth by the constant attrition of the 
ice, and as sealing vessels touch their smooth surfaces they glide 
away unharmed, literally *^ feeling their way." Such is the re- 
port of Arctic sailors. 

When Commander Wildes appeared before the Court of In- 
quiry, a tribunal that he knew was convened by order of the 
President of the United States, he protested in advance against 
having his '^ acts as commander of the naval expedition inquired 
into by the Court." He only consented to be sworn after the 
Eecorder had replied to him as follows : " Commander Wildes, 
you are summoned as a witness, and appear as a witness, before 
the Court to answer any questions that may be put to you, and 
you have the same privilege that any other witness has of de- 
clining to answer any question that may tend to criminate you." 
He then consented to testify, but positively objected to being 
asked any questions by myself, although he readily answered all 
questions propounded to him by Lieutenant Garlington. 

Upon his conduct the Secretary of the Navy says : "It does 
not, in the present aspect of the facts, seem to the Department 
that the Yantic properly fulfilled her duty as a tender to the 
Proteus — with which she had been ordered to proceed in com- 
pany — while keeping twelve days behind her, and thereby defeat- 
ing the objects of the expedition." This, and further commu- 
nications of the Secretary of the Nav}^, virtually impute to Com- 
mander Wildes a gross violation of paragraph nine, Article 
eight, of the articles for the government of the Navy, which 
makes liable to such punishment as a court-martial may adjudge 
any person in the Navy who " is negligent or careless m obey- 
ing orders, or culpably inefficient in the performance of duty." 
It is no defence of Commander Wildes that his orders did not 
specifically define how he was to render such aid as, when on 
the spot, any emergency might make necessary. A supposed 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 347 

loyal and watchful regard for duty, and the functions his com- 
mission clothed him with, was sufficient authority to enable him 
to deal with conditions that change every moment, and which 
no commander can foresee. Commander Wildes knew that the 
only purpose of the expedition was the relief of the Greely par- 
ty, and that with himself rested the sole power to render that 
relief, Mr, Garlington having gone south to seek it, and being 
able to obtain it. When, as Commander Wildes says, there were 
two courses before him, either to aid Greely or Garlington, and 
he quickly decided upon the latter, he fails to say that it was 
easy to have rendered all the necessary aid for Greely with but 
two days' delay, and then given to Lieutenant Garlington all 
the aid he could have done at first. The power to rescue Greely 
and his party was in the hands of Commander Wildes, and it 
only required his willingness to do it, and he refused it, and 
sailed to the south thirty days before it was necessary. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

W. B. HazeisT, 

Brig, and Bvt. Maj, Gen., Chief 8ig, Officer U, S, A. 



348 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 



FROM GENERAL HAZEN, AGAIN URGING THE TRIAL 
OF GARLINGTON. 

SiGKAL Office, War DEPARTME^iTT, 

WASHii^GTOH City, December 20, 1884. 

The Honor aMe the Secretary of War : 

Sir : On the 6th instant I forwarded charges and specifica- 
tions against First Lieutenant Ernest A. Garlington, Seventh 
Cavahy, late in command of the Greely Relief Expedition, for 
disobedience of orders and neglect of duty, requesting that he 
be brought to trial. 

I have to again request this action, and that it may be done 
as speedily as circumstances will permit. 

I am not debarred from saying to you that, in my opinion, 
and in that of the eminent legal adviser whose opinion I have 
sought, that neither the evidence nor facts warranted the very 
damaging opinions of the Proteus Court of Inquiry referring to 
me, as formulated in their proceedings. 

My consciousness fails to discover any grounds for such ac- 
tion, and it is opposed by a record of thirty years of efficient 
public service. I made no special defence before the Court, ex- 
cepting to show the falsity of the evidence that tlie relief outfit 
was faulty and insufficient, not supposing that any was neces: 
sary, and the findings of that Court reflecting so severely upon 
me are seriously harmful and unjust, and are not su23ported by 
facts or evidence. 

Mr. Garlington defeated the purpose of that expedition by 
his wilful acts, which I am ready to prove, and I again ask, as a 
matter of simple justice to myself, to the truth of history, and 
in the interests of discipline and a high sense of duty, that he 
be brought to trial. 

He was disobedient and neglectful of his duties from the be- 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAKTIAL. 349 

ginning, and ended with such utter neglect, inefficiency, and 
disregard of the highest and plainest duties that could rest 
upon any man, and even the common dictates of humanity 
under circumstances affecting life and death, and for which 
others were made responsible, that again, in the interests of 
simple justice, I ask for his speedy trial. 

I enclose the opinion of my attorney. Judge T. J. Mackey, 
upon the subject, as referring to any effect the Proteus Court of 
Inquiry might be thought to have upon the question of his trial. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

W. B. HAZEIf, 

Brig, and Bvt, Maj.-Gen.^ Chief Sig. Officer U. S, A. 



350 THE HAZEIT COURT-MAETIAL. 



LETTER OF THE HON. ROBERT T. LWCOLl^, SEC- 
RETARY OF WAR, PRESENTINO HIS VIEWS OF 
THE ACTION OF GENERAL HAZEN IN RELATION 
TO THE CARLINGTON RELIEF EXPEDITION, TO 
WHICH VIEWS THE PROTEUS COURT OF IN- 
QUIRY CONFORMED ITS CONCLUSIONS. 

Wae Depaetmekt, October 31, 1883. 

To the Chief Signal Officer United States Army : 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
letter of the 16th inst., enclosing the report of First Lieutenant 
E. A. Garlington, Seventh Cavalry, upon the expedition sent 
to the Arctic seas this summer for the relief of the Interna- 
tional Meteorological Expedition, under the command of Lieu- 
tenant A. W. Greely, Fifth Cavalry, and also the letter of 
■the Acting Chief Signal Officer of the 23d insfc., enclosing 
Lieutenant Garlington's responses to your special interro- 
gations. 

It is needless to say to you that the disastrous failure of this 
I'elief expedition, upon the success of which depended, as it may 
perhaps hereafter be learned, the lives of a number of men, has 
widely excited public attention, and that there is a general desire 
io understand clearly the causes of this failure, and that it may 
'be known where the responsibility therefor rests. It is apparent 
dihat two things at least were omitted, either one of which being 
-done the general object of the expedition would have been ac- 
complished up to a certain point, and the part}^, not seriously 
crippled, would have been left at a place from which it could 
have proceeded to execute its further plans for the relief of Lieu- 
tenant Greely and his party. The loss of the Proteus alone, 
.happening where it did, might have been a matter of no im- 



THE HAZEl^ COURT-MARTIAL. 351 

porfcance in this connection. It was fully contemplated that if 
it failed to reach Lady Franklin Bay it was to return to St. 
John's, leaving the relief party in winter quarters at or near 
Littleton Island. If Lieutenant Garlington had prudently made 
a base of supplies at or near Littleton Island it would have been 
a matter of little consequence to him or his party whether the 
Proteus went to St. John's, or, without loss of life, to the bot- 
tom of the ocean. On the other hand, if the Proteus had suc- 
ceeded in reaching Lady Franklin Bay its extra stores would 
not, as I understand, have been needed by Lieutenant Greely, 
who was there abundantly provided for, and the taking of these 
extra stores past Littleton Island was not only useless for any 
purpose, as I conceive, but was a fatal risk. It would therefore 
seem that the directions contained in the memorandum men- 
tioned in your letter, that Lieutenant Garlington should in go- 
ing up establish a base of supplies, was a most prudent measure, 
the omission of which, after it had been once thought of, is as 
difficult to understand as it is to be deeply regretted. It is now 
clear that it was never an order to Lieutenant Garlington, but 
it is equally clear that, having seen it and having under your 
orders a discretion, he could not have done more wisely than to 
follow the particular suggestion contained in it above men- 
tioned. I consider it necessary to inquire further into the his- 
tory of this memorandum. It appeared as a loose paper enclosed 
with your letter of instrnctions to Lieutenant Garlington dated 
June 4, 1883, but it is not mentioned in that letter. I am ad- 
vised by the Secretary of the Navy that, while he was preparing 
his orders for the Yantic, you furnished his department with a 
supposed copy of that letter, which, in like manner, did not men- 
tion the memorandum and did not enclose it. This copy, as did 
the original, covered four mentioned onclosures, but only one of 
them seems to have been like its original. The three other en- 
closures, as now seen, differ entirely from those with the origi- 
nal letter, and do not, of course, meet their own description as 
found in the body of the supposed copy of the original letter. 
After the telegraphic reports of the disaster were received I, 
upon the request of the Secretary of the 'NaYj, directed the 
Acting Chief Signal Officer, in your absence, to prepare for, and 



353 THE HAZElSr COUET-MAETIAL. 

furnish to, the Secretary of the Nayy a copy of your instruc- 
tions to Lieutenant Garlington. This last, as furnished, con- 
tains only three enclosures, four being mentioned in the body of 
the letter. One of them was substantially like one of the en- 
closures with the original letter; another was substantially like 
one of those with the first copy above mentioned; and the third 
was marked "Enclosure 4" (an enclosure 4 being noted in the 
letter), and is a copy of the "memorandum" in question. 
These latter papers were, of course, supposed by the Secre- 
tary of the ISTavy and myself, in our conference, to be as stated, 
an authentic copy of your instructions to Lieutenant Garling- 
ton, and we, in our conferences, formed an opinion as to his 
having disobeyed an order, which it now appears he did not in 
fact receive as an order. I have had prepared, and herewith en- 
close, a tabulated statement and memorandum of the above- 
mentioned discrepancies, and some others of less importance 
existing in the above-mentioned papers, which it is thought 
ought to be alike, and I request to be advised what explana- 
tion there is, if any, for these discrepancies; and further, what 
the records of your office show to have been done with the 
above "memorandum" after its original preparation; and 
what, in case Lieutenant Garlington had himself been lost 
upon this expedition, would have prevented the resting upon 
his record of the imputation of having disobeyed a positive 
instruction as to landing his extra stores at or near Little- 
ton Island on his way north. I may also add that I observe in 
the agreement between yourself and the owners of the Proteus^ 
under which it started upon this expedition, a clause providing 
for the sale by the Proteus to Lieutenant Greely's party at Lady 
Franklin Bay of coal, if needed, to the amount of seventy tons. 
I beg that you will advise me why it was supposed that that 
party might need to have the benefit of a contract for fuel to 
that amount in case the Proteus had succeeded in reaching 
Lady Franklin Bay. The other important omission to which I 
have referred is the failure of Lieutenant Garlington to keep 
his ship in company with the Yantic. I have not observed 
in any of his papers a satisfactory explanation as to his rea- 
sons for permitting the Proteus to be separated from the Yan- 



THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 353 

tic before their arriving at Littleton Island or its neighborhood. 
He was informed by his letters of instructions that the Yantic 
would accompany him as far as Littleton Island. 

The assistance of the Navy in this way was regarded by us 
as adding greatly to the probable success of the expedition and 
as an almost perfect protection against great disaster. But, in- 
stead of sailing together, the movements of the vessels were so 
conducted that for all the good the Yantic was to Lieutenant 
Greely's party in auy way, or to Lieutenant Garlington's relief 
party in saving their lives or their supplies, the Yantic might 
as well have left St. John's in 1884 as wlien it did. At the very 
outset at St. John's it appears from these papers that Lieuten- 
ant Garlington and the commander of the Yantic made an 
agreement embodied in an unsigned written memorandum that, 
upon leaving St, John's, the Proteus was to steam, and the 
Yantic was to go under sail; and the agreement does not seem 
to contemplate the probability of their being again in company 
until about August 25, at Pandora Harbor, not far from Little- 
ton Island. As it happened. Lieutenant Garlington was still at 
Godhaven when on July 12 the Yantic arrived there, the com- 
mander of the Yantic saying that he would have to remain 
about a week to make some repairs and to coal. The Proteus 
remained four days of this week, and, without waiting the other 
three days, steamed away to become a wreck. Instead of using 
the Yantic as a convoy and companion, tlie Proteus was moved 
by written agreement, and by design, as though escaping from 
the Yantic. 

I am not satisfied with Lieutenant Garlington's explanation 
of the causes which led him into the very grave, and perhaps 
fatal, error of going south from Littleton Island after the loss 
of tlie Proteus. If he had remained there he would have been 
succored by the Yantic in eiglit days, and a relief station for 
Lieutenant Greel3^'s party would have been established. The 
loss of the Proteus would then have been little more than an 
inconvenience. I cannot understand how it was that while on 
July 22, on his way north, when, in his own words, '^the 
weather was perfect, warm, calm, delightful, . . . there was 



354 THE HAZEN COUKT-MAETIAL. 

no ice as far as could be seen from the crow's nest with the aid 
of a Yery powerful telescope," he felt so safe, even away from all 
communication with the Yantic, that he saw no necessity for 
making a base of supj)lies at Littleton Island ; yet four days 
later, at the same place, he did not suppose the Yantic could 
get up to where he was, and so put to sea with all his party in 
small boats in an Arctic ocean. The Yantic was bound to go 
there. Imagine, if possible, the reception which the com- 
mander of the Yantic would have had if he had returned home 
in September with no news of the Proteus, and without haying 
been to Littleton Island. It is not forgotten that Lieutenant 
Garlington was not in a pleasant place, nor that he endured 
very great hardships ; but he had volunteered for the per- 
formance of an important duty, with a full knowledge of the 
certain difficulties and of the desolation which would sur- 
round him, and the demand upon him was correspondingly 
great. 

In his supplemental report Lieutenant Grarlington says that 
^* when the Proteus encountered the pack in Melville Bay no 
one on board that vessel thought the Yantic would cross the 
bay. This opinion was formed from the known intention of 
the commander of the Yantic not to put his vessel into the 
ice." This opinion was formed on the way north, and there- 
fore prevailed when Lieutenant Garlington passed Littleton 
Island. It was in effect that no assistance could come from the 
Yantic, and that those on the Proteus must depend only upon 
themselves for the attainment of the two alternative objects of 
their voyage — first, to reach Lieutenant Greely with their ship, 
and, failing that, the establishment of a well-provided relief sta- 
tion at or near Littleton Island. The last object could have been 
assured by merely delaying for a few days their dangerous north- 
ward voyage ; and it now appears that a delay of but a little 
more than a week would have permitted not only the establish- 
ment of the station, but would have put them again in close 
communication witli the Yafitic. For, as Lieutenant Garling- 
ton says, ^' As it turned out, to every one's surprise, the Yantic 
saw no ice in Melville Bay, and had an uninterrupted passage to 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 355 

Littleton Island." Lieutenant Garlington's singularly unfortu- 
nate errors of judgment as to his own safety in going in one di- 
rection, and as to the Yantic's danger in corning from the oppo- 
site direction, Avere each productive of disaster. It appears to 
me that Lieutenant Garlington's supplemental report only tends 
to make an understanding of his failure to remain at or near 
Littleton Island after the loss of the Froieus more difficult than 
before. If he had no hope of the Yantic coming north, not 
from lack of enterprise in its commander, but on account of 
the assumed unfitness of the ship for such a voyage and the 
orders by which it was controlled, how is it that he expected 
to carry out the plan outlined in his supplemental report, where 
he says that he *^ determined to communicate with the YaJitic 
as soon as possible to do so, to get from her all the supplies that 
could be spared, and establish a depot at Life-Boat Cove" ? 
Life-Boat Cove is near Littleton Island. It is not to be sup- 
posed that he thought that the Yantic would accomjolish more 
under his guidance than before, and would come north to Little- 
ton Island or Life-Boat (Jove to land supplies if its orders or its 
condition were such as to prevent its coming. It is even more 
improbable that Lieutenant Garlington could reasonably expect 
to cross a large expanse of Arctic sea in small boats and return 
in them, necessarily in a late season, with supplies and shelter 
for a winter station at Life-Boat Cove. Upon due considera- 
tion I have thought it proper to submit the case to the Presi- 
dent, with my recommendation that he direct the appointment 
of a Court of Inquiry to investigate the fitting out of the Greely 
relief expedition transported by the steamer Proteus, having 
particular reference to the orders and instructions therefor, and 
for the conduct of the expedition and the arrangements made 
for assistance from the United States steamship Yantic; and 
also the general conduct of the expedition, including particu- 
larly the failure of the Proteus to keep in company with the 
Yantic up to Littleton Island or its neighborhood, and the fail- 
ure to establish a well-provided relief station at or near Little- 
ton Island ; and with directions to report their findings and 
their opinions as to whether the conduct of any officer of the 



356 THE HAZEN COUET-MAETIAL. 

Army in the premises calls for further proceedings before a 
court-martial, and the reasons for the conclusions which they 
may reach. 

The President has thereupon directed that a Court of In- 
quiry be appointed, as recommended, and the necessary orders 
will be at once issued. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

EOBEET T. Ll]SrCOLK, 

Secretary of War, 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 357 



GENEKAL HAZEN'S MILITARY EECORD. 

{Letter from T. J. Mackey in Washington Post.) 

Webster Law Buildikg, 

Washington, March 16, 1885. 

To the Editor of the Post : 

♦ There appeared in the National RepuUican of the 14th inst. 
the following: '^The other " (meaning General Hazen), "in 
public estimate, is regarded a very incompetent and unruly 
oflBcer. The sensational has played a yery important part in 
the career of General Hazen." 

This being in a newspaper owned by one of the late secre- 
taries who made the decision not to send relief to Greely after 
the return of the Yantic in 1883, and at a time when he ])QV' 
sonally controlled the paper, and being printed in the editorial 
column, it is fair to suppose that it was penned by him, and 
with the purpose to affect the judgment of the court-martial 
having the subject under consideration. 

He meant to say that General Hazen is a very incompetent 
officer, and his career is mainly sensational, and he is insub- 
ordinate. 

Unfortunately for the truth of these statements, the writer 
is not sustained by the record. 

General Hazen has never engaged in contests excejot in self- 
defence when wantonly assailed. There is not a fact anywhere 
in his record to support the charge of incompetency. The 
record does show that in 1858 his department commander. 
General Wool, publicly commended him in the highest manner 
for zeal and efficiency. It shows that in 1859 the inspector of 
his department, Lieutenant-Colonel (now General) Joseph E. 
Johnston, officially reported : " The second lieutenant, Hazen, 
was severely wounded a week ago in the third successful pursuit 



358 THE HAZEK COUET-MAETIAL. 

of Indians, in which he has exhibited activity, perseverance, and 
courage." It also shows that he was breveted by the govern- 
ment for this service for "gallantry in two general engage- 
ments with the Indians." It shows that this same officer (Gene- 
ral Johnston), as a general in the Confederate service, reports 
substantially that, but for the service of General Ilazen with 
his command at Stone Eiver, the Confederates would have gain- 
ed that battle. He (General Johnston), now being in this city, 
still maintains it. It shows that his command held the only 
position of the original Union line of the morning at that battle. 
It shows that his command flanked the besieging army at Chat- 
tanooga, gaining Brown's Ferry and Lookout Valley by passing 
the enemy's flank in fifty-two boats at night when the siegg of 
our Army was raised. It shows that he with his command first 
gained the crest and carried Mission Eidge at the assault in that 
battle. It shows that he was most efficiently engaged in the 
principal actions, including Eesaca, Pickets Mill, and Jonesboro, 
in the Atlanta campaign. 

Secretary Stanton appointed General Ilazen a major-gene- 
ral December 13, 1864, and wrote in his commission as his 
reasons : " For long and faithful service of the highest charac- 
ter, and for gallant service in the capture of Fort McAllister." 
General 0. 0. Howard, in whose army General Hazen served 
the last year of the War, has said: " I say, and always have said, 
that General Hazen is one of the best and most efficient officers 
I have ever known." General Sherman, with whom General 
Hazen served during a great portion of the war, says, in a com- 
munication dated June 10, 1883 : " I was not in the Army dur- 
ing his (General Hazen's) earlier years of service, and can only 
recall him to memory from and since the battle of Shiloh ; but 
his military record from the day of his first commission is per- 
fect, and is such as a«ny man may be proud of. He is an officer 
of the highest professional aijtainments, of the best possible 
habits, and is very particular jn the choice of his associates." 
The record shows that at the beginning of the war he was a 
second lieutenant oi infantry, and at its close the commander of 
an army corps, having gained his successive steps by gallant con- 
duct in battle. General Gibbon, the Inspector General of the 



THE HAZEI^ COURT-MARTIAL. 359 

Department of Dakota, October 3, 1879, names Fort Buford, 
General Hazen's post, as in the best police of any in the depart- 
ment. 

Professor Cleveland Abbe, of the Signal Service, says, in his 
testimony before the recent joint commission of Congress to 
investigate the Signal Service and other scientific bureaus, 
" The Signal Service is now in the highest state of efficiency," 
and then explains in detail how it has become so, *'due to its 
admirable and complete organization and administration in 
every detail, brought about by General Hazen." 

These stories of incompetence are puerile falsehoods of a 
syndicate of defamation, made up of General Hazen's bitter 
enemies, who have tried unavailingly every other charge against 
him and have now come to this one, but his most ample record 
of thirty-four years' public service does not show one word to 
justify this charge, and the record is unassailable. Besides, it 
is an unmanly act for a man to attack another wheni at the bar 
of justice. 

T. J. Mackey, 
Counsel for General Hazen, 



360 THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 



LETTEE FEOM J. W. KANDOLPH IN ANSWER TO 
THE ASPERSIONS CAST UPON SERGEANT BRAIN- 
ARD BY COLONEL CHAUNCEY McKEEVER. 

Cleveland, 0., Sept. 6, 1884. 
Gei^. W. B. Hazei^, 

Chief Signal Officer U. S. A., Washington, B.C. : 

Dear Sie : The Wasliington specials to the Cleveland 
papers do Sergeant Brainard and comrades great injustice. 
The specials referred to are alleged interviews with a prominent 
Army official " high in authority." That the said prominent 
official 'Hiigh in authority" is some one who is desirous of in- 
juring Sergeant Brainard is very evident, as the specials show 
on their face genuine malice. 

There is not to-day in the whole world a man with a higher 
regard for honor, decency, and the good of the United States 
Army than Sergeant Brainard. The assertions made by his un- 
known traducer that he is degrading the service by making a 
disgraceful exhibition of himself in dime museums is false. 
Neither he nor his comrades are on exhibition as "freaks of 
nature" or " monstrosities," but simply appearing on the stage, 
when, with the assistance of Polar maps, they deliver very in- 
teresting lectures. 

As to the respectability of the place where they are now 
under engagement I would refer you to miy citizens of Cleve- 
land. The museums where they are to appear for the next ten 
weeks are the most respectable places of amusement in the 
cities where they are located, and attended by the very best 
people. The " survivors " are very popular with the people. 
As an evidence of their popularity, the dignitaries of the Cin- 
cinnati Exposition, the mayor and city officials, have tendered 
them a reception, and from present indications it will be a 



THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 361 

most enthusiastic reception. I am paying them one thousand 
dolhirs per week, which I am sure you will agree is a Yery 
handsome remuneration, and the travel is certainly beneficial 
to their health. I sincerely trust that nothing may occur to 
jeopardize Sergeant Brainard's prospects for promotion. If 
ever any one deserves it I am sure it is he. I crave your in- 
dulgence for this intrusion upon your valuable time. 

I am, sir, yours very truly, 

J. W. Randolph. 



362 THE HAZEN COURT-MARTIAL. 



THE DELINQUENCY OF COMMANDER FRANK 
WILDES PROVED BY THE LOG-BOOK OF 
THE ^'YANTIC." 

It has come to my knowledge, since the Introduction to this 
work was stereotyped, that certain entries in the log-book of 
the Yantic directly contradict the official report of Commander 
Wildes in several vital particulars affecting the question of that 
officer's responsibility for the Arctic tragedy. 

I deem it due to historic truth that the facts thus derived 
from an indisputable record should be given to the public. 

I cite from Commander Wildes' report of the cruise of the 
Yantic as follows : 

*' Near Cape Dudley Digges I ran close in, but could see no opening; the 
ice was packed close, and reached to the land twenty miles distant. . . . 

"At noon of this day (August 10), having ice in all directions, except 
S. B., and unable to see but a short distance in that direction, the land be- 
ing unapproachable, our supply of coal greatly diminished, the imprudence 
of remaining in this vicinity became sufficiently obvious, and I bore up for 
Upernavik, which was reached August 12, having thick, rough weather 
during the passage." 

The entry in the log-book of the Yantic shows that at the 
very hour that ship headed southward for Upernavik, on Au- 
gust 10, Cape York was in sight, distant about twenty-five 
miles to the southeast, and was approachable, there being no 
ice within view sufficient to obstruct her passage to that 
point. 

The report of Lieutenant G-arlington snows that on that 
very day the advance of his party, under Lieutenant Colwell, 
was encamped at Cape York, and the entire party remained 
there until August 16. 

Had Wildes landed at Cape York before bearing up for Uper- 
navik, as stated, Garlington would have there been intercepted 
and would have been obliged to return on tlie Yantic and estab- 
lish the winter station at Life-Boat Cove, as ordered by Gene- 
ral Hazen, in pursuance of the plan of Lieutenant Greely. 



THE IIAZETT COURT-MA ETIAL. 363 

That having been done, the most appalling disaster in the 
history of American Arctic exploration would never have trans- 
pired. 

That disaster was too dire and revolting in its incidents to 
be compensated for, even by the tall, heroic manhood of the re- 
doubtable Schley, whose dauntless spirit, exhibited in the rescue 
of its survivors, has added another unfading laurel to the already 
full wreath of the United States Navy. 

The same accusatory log-book shows that so far from being 
impelled to hurry away from the vicinity of Cape York by his 
** greatly diminished supply of coal," Commander Wildes had 
then on board the Yantic one hundred and thirty (130) tons of 
coal, or tvithin forty tons of her full coal capacity, an amount 
that could have been made to last fifteen days, and he was only 
two days' steaming from coal supplies at Upernavik. 

The full significance of Wildes' failure to make a persistent 
effort to effect a landing at Cape York will be best appreciated 
by the fact that he had explicit notice that the wrecked Gar- 
lington party, including an officer of Wildes' own ship, were re- 
treating on that point. 

Tliat notice was given in the record which Garlington de- 
posited at Pandora Harbor on July 27, and which Wildes found 
and read on August 3, as stated in his official report. 

I make the following extract from that record : 

** I have forty days' full rations for my party. Will go south, keeping 
close into shore as possible, and calling at Carey Islands, to Cape York, or 
until I meet some vessel. Hope to meet United States steamship YantiCy 
or the Swedish steamer Sophia, which should be about Cape York.' 

Had Commander Wildes been without any special mission 
in those waters, and had learned casually of the wreck even of 
a party of foreign explorers who were retreating southward to 
Cape York in open boats, the dictates of common humanity 
would have required that he should exhaust every effort to effect 
their rescue. 

But sixteen of those thirty-seven shipwrecked men were his 
own countrymen, who had been charged with the duty of res- 
cuing twenty-five other American citizens who were then greatly 



THE HAZEN COURT-MAETIAL. 

imperilled in the polar zone, and tlie orders received by Com- 
mander Wildes from his government contained the following 
clause : 

*' In view of the possibility of the destruction of the Proteus, it is de- 
sirable that you should proceed as far north as practicable in order to afford 
succor to her officers and men in the event of such an accident." 

With these orders before him he committed those men in 
their frail yawl-boats to the hazard of threading the ice of Mel- 
ville Bay for nearly two Jaundred miles, and that too when he 
had at least fifty days of the navigable season yet left in which 
to continue the search for them, and they were then within 
easy reach of his ship, at the very spot at which he had been 
notified to seek them, and where they had gone to seek him. 

If on these facts appearing Commander Wildes is not 
brought to the bar of a court-martial, then Article 9 should be 
stricken from the Articles for the government of the Navy. 

I quote from that article as follows • 

" Such punishment as a court-martial may adjudge may be inflicted on 
any person in the Navy who is negligent or careless in obeying orders or 
culpably inefficient in the performance of duty." 

T. J. Mackey. 




^ r 218 



^ 






^<^^' .V 



.^^' ' 



S : J'%- ^S'^^^ ■^^"% "^ \ 



^ /\ 



I ^. 



A^ c " ^ '' 









v"^ "^ v-vl 1^ 



,0 o. 



•,^^^^ ^^N^ 






-^v^^ 









^•", 'r. \> 



/ O On , / 



..OO 






r| 






<~^^ 



'^ '' 



' ^ O- 









,-v-' 



<?• A'' ,'^^A!> " 'i>f. A- 



'o A/ !> N?-,^ 












\ 



T> ^2 









V' 






° /7>x 



^C5X>t 



.^n^ ^OO^, .^ 

.O^ ,. > -'A ^C^ \> 






,0o 



,0- 



A 



.<^^' ■'■r' 






.^ A 









,~^ 



A^ 



<■ ' -^ ^^ a' 






V . 




^e^ 



X^^ '^^^. ^.% 



' vO O . t ^^\^'L 



^- 






" ' ' ~ X >' . ^ ' ' / 



A'-' ^ ' * " ^ ^^ 



\' 






A^ 






"#( 



ci 



^■^\' 



>'- --A ^m:a^^' 



c. 















^ ■^,i. ' v. 






o.> -* 






vOo. 



£> <■> 



o>- 



o> 









.^o^'-V^ > 









C?^ 






^ A'^ 




•S^ <^. 






.^-i^ 






^ ' ^ ,gfe<<0?tilx,_ ^ 



...S'^ <*-. 



"^^ V*' 



-c^^^x 



'J 









.#^ .' 












'^>„> ; 



# 



." r-^.. 






•^' -".p 



•\'- 



% 






%.,^^ 



c^ 







^^ -•> 



*' ..^' 



0^ .xVv?^^-^. ^.^ 



